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.
Maybe it's because I'm Swedish and we've experienced Russia's "probing defenses" tactic for a very long time (mainly "breaking" into Swedish airspace with airplanes, and discovering submarines at the Swedish shores), but I always thought this was common knowledge, always interesting to learn it isn't for everyone :)
>This feels just like that now that you put it this way. I never connected those dots though.
Boxers learned from the art of war, not the other way around.
"Probing attacks" are a standard doctrine. It's not always a clear signal of intent to increase hostilities because it's also just useful as an intelligence gathering exercise.
That's very similar to how the "accidental" flights over neighbouring territory works as far as I understand. This happens regularly between many countries. Just far enough to get some response, but not enough to get shot down immediately.
I cannot find any lists (either in English or Swedish) but I remember Russia has been accidentally breaking into Swedish airspace like once a year for as long as I can remember. Submarines also sometimes "accidentally" end up close to Swedish shores.
It'd be interesting to see some total numbers, and compare other countries with how often it happens between Sweden/Russia.
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.
Russia and these NATO countries being probed are like the two siblings in the back seat. Mom, he's touching me. Stop touching your brother. Mom, he's holding his finger right next to me. Dad eventually says, don't make me pull this car over and start a global thermonuclear war
Not quite. Be careful, Russia invests a lot in disinformation campaigns and spreading (conflicting, but that is part of their doctrine) narratives. Bothsidisms and False Equivalency are some of the common tools in muddying the information sphere.
NATO and Europe did quite a lot to normalize relations with Russia. Russia was invited and became participant of the NATO program Partnership For Peace [0].
The program contains 6 areas of cooperation, which aims to build relationships with partners through military-to-military cooperation on training, exercises, disaster planning and response, science and environmental issues, professionalization, policy planning, and relations with civilian government
Very nice, but the secret services that took over the empire did and does not fancy a rule-based, harmonious order based on mutual relations, human rights, freedom of press etc. As any autocracy or kleptocracy understands, that is very much a threat to their power, beacuse
- Population will demand political influence.
- Mindset. A criminal thinks in terms of I win, you lose. Might makes right. Complete opposite of what makes up the dna of the free world.
The imperative is on us to understand that message really well. It goes slowly unfortunately. It is hard for us to grok.
Notice how on our part, helped via tech oligarchs, there is an incessant bombardment to undermine support for those values. Kremlin troll factories are a thing, but the Chinese are speading up rapidly in the information sphere too. Especially youngsters are targeted.
The war has already begun, but we don´t want to see it. And that is dangerous.
Except its always Russia instigating. We never sent someone to look at the spire of Saint Basil (the pathetic excuse offered for explaining the presence of GRU officers in Salisbury carrying out chemical warfare), or really struck at their weak points.
Sound the fire alarm over a birthday cake candle once, and you've got a drill making people get better at evacuating.
Sound the fire alarm over a birthday cake candle several times a week, and people learn the alarm means there's no fire, no need to rush, they've got time to finish that e-mail and grab their coat.
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.
> If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands.
As a European, I'd say there is just about 0 chance of the EU unilaterally supporting Russian taken any occupied areas to themselves and Ukraine surrendering. Not only would it signal to Russia that they can take European land without consequences, but public opinion is very much against any sort of cessation of defenses. In my ~30 years I've never seen as strong NATO support from the common man in countries like Sweden and Spain as there is today.
> As a European, I'd say there is just about 0 chance of the EU unilaterally supporting Russian taken any occupied areas to themselves
I agree, but it's not about accepting or saying it's a good idea, it's about whether European countries can replace the US support enough that Ukraine can reasonably keep defending themselves.
I would say because China and North Korea joined the train of gravy, to the point to NK selling food to Russian Army. Maybe India also helped to sustain the Russian economy for a while.
In any case Russia losing its oil refineries one by one is the real deal here.
> So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months
Unsurprisingly this week after Macron speech, "French" farmers decided to organize again on groups directed by leaders and block and destroy Spanish cargo trucks at the frontier, without any policemen to be found at place.
Is obvious that somebody is trying again the old trick to confront and divide in the EU. We had seen the same before in Poland, etc.
But a trick overused can became counterproductive. I'm sure that Macron and other in EU can sum deux and deux and understand that surrender is not an option anymore. Is not just Ukraine but also their own political survival what is at stake. If they let this agents roam free and grow, they will lose gradually the power.
Would be an economical win for Europe if the US drew their aid. The amount of money needed to be spent in military aid across Europe would create markets within the region that would in the longer run create good wealth.
Alone from that reason, USA will not pull their aid. USA cannot afford losing Europe as an arms client
They are not, if you take the larger context into account - and that is China and their saber rattling not just against Taiwan but also against everyone else in what China thinks is "their" influence sphere such as the Philippines.
Russia's warmongering (not just in Ukraine, but also via Syria, Iran and Yemen!) is breaking apart both the US and EU internally - recent elections have shown that both populations are pretty much fed up with the wars and their consequences, and once enough countries either fall to Putin's 5th column outright or their governments pull a Chamberlain, China can be relatively certain no one will intervene too much when they decide that now is the best time to annex other countries.
> are escalating the war (they started, with the long-range missiles),
Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?
Russia will not stop taking its land in Kursk back because the Americans tell them to do so, this is just Western delusion, and, as I've said before on this forum, a complete misunderstanding coming from the Westerners on how Russia operates.
I'm very curious, can any European here, or perhaps a German for specificity, tell me whether they believe these sanctions have harmed Russia more than Europe?
Also it would be better if any Russians here could answer a similar question
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.
Destroying the gas pipeline between Estonia and Finland did take it out for like six months. I think it may have had some negative impact on Estonian electricity prices during that time.
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.
"So - according to Russian federal port records, the Chinese ship suspected of cutting the communications cables in the Baltic Sea was captained by a Russian citizen (one Stechentsev A.E.). Interestingly Yui Peng 3 was only transferred to its current owner in China earlier this month.
The ship is carrying goods/oil from Ust-Luga in Russia, to Port Said in Egypt. Same captain also comandeered URSUS ARCTOS also carrying goods from Ust-Luga to Egypt. Mapped using
@SensusQ
. "
Hard to say. They will claim this is only Flag of convenience as they are caught. However China still has the opportunity to say that this is something for their law enforcement to take care of not international, and then give the captain "a slap on the wrist".
What we don't know is if China knew they were going to try this beforehand or not. Flag of Convenience is common enough that we can't be sure. This could have been planned on the high level from China and we would never know - something conspiracy theorists will run with! If China knew they would probably give the crew a sever punishment, but unofficially it is for getting caught and not doing the act. Most likely though China didn't know before hand.
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.)
> The international order is often called the 'US-led rules-based interntional order'.
There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically). They're completely at odds - often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.
The US is king of Grey zone actions. Random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Cuba, etc. - the list is very long.
So when the US complains about Russia doing similar things (often responding to provocation by the US or NATO), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".
Russia engages in random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Ukraine, etc. - the list is very long. Indeed, russia appears to be king of grey zone actions.
So when russia complains about the US doing similar things (often responding to provocation by russia), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".
> There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically).
Those are the same 'order', the same thing. The UN and international law are unquestionable, essential parts of the international order.
> often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.
Agreed, as I discussed in the GP: the US and its partners often violate those rules and let themselves off the hook, as status quo powers tend to do. It doesn't excuse it at all, but that's not inconsistent with the rules-based order.
Also, with a veto on UN Security Council decisions, if the US votes against something then it's not law.
You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.
How are you going to ethnically cleanse Uyghurs in a rule based order, or run international crime networks at the level of statehood?
Just a reality check: the United States is currently funding and providing military equipment to Israel, who is carrying out an ethnic cleansing in the Gaza strip. Apparently, democratic governments also have a problem following the rules.
> You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.
The democratic countries follow the pattern of status quo powers. Is that because they are democratic or because they are status quo, or some of both?
The rules are of the status quo powers (matching their political cultures), by the status quo powers, for the status quo powers. Of course they follow those rules and support them. The rules seem to require a country to be a democracy to be legitimate - I agree with that as necessary to legitimacy (not sufficient), but obviously that doesn't suit non-democratic countries.
And like status quo powers, when they break the rules - most prominently the US many times, such as the Iraq war; the EU treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants; and currently by Israel with US sponsorship - then they let themselves off the hook. They engineer technicalities, such as the weak UN resolution arguably authorizing the Iraq invasion; or just look the other way. They say they can't be handcuffed etc. (And some of those actions may be the right choice - I'm not judging - but they certainly violate the rules.)
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.
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.
It should be noted that Putin was personally an enforcer for St Petersburg's mayor Anatoly Sobchak[1] in the early 1990s, and his "circle of friends" from that time now mans key positions of the entire government. For example, Viktor Zolotov[2], Sobchak's bodyguard and Putin's judo partner, is now in charge of National Guard, despite not having qualifications for the job.
Russia is literally run buy thugs who ran protection rackets not so long ago. So there's much more to this than just a fitting figure of speech. Someone from the worst parts of LA would be better equipped to understand and deal with such people than those who spent their teens and early adulthood playing Model UN at a foreign relations club.
The "retaliation" against US is to disrupt communications between.. Finland and Germany?
Applying the same logic, Ukraine should retaliate against Russia for bombing their hospitals with an attack on.. Iranian civilian infrastructure? Did I get that right?
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.
This is really interesting how you’ve explained it.
In many professional fights the competitors start matches with light, quick jabs to probe their opponents defense.
This feels just like that now that you put it this way. I never connected those dots though.
Maybe it's because I'm Swedish and we've experienced Russia's "probing defenses" tactic for a very long time (mainly "breaking" into Swedish airspace with airplanes, and discovering submarines at the Swedish shores), but I always thought this was common knowledge, always interesting to learn it isn't for everyone :)
29 replies →
>This feels just like that now that you put it this way. I never connected those dots though.
Boxers learned from the art of war, not the other way around.
"Probing attacks" are a standard doctrine. It's not always a clear signal of intent to increase hostilities because it's also just useful as an intelligence gathering exercise.
That's very similar to how the "accidental" flights over neighbouring territory works as far as I understand. This happens regularly between many countries. Just far enough to get some response, but not enough to get shot down immediately.
> but not enough to get shot down
Doesn't always work
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shoo...
1 reply →
> This happens regularly between many countries.
I cannot find any lists (either in English or Swedish) but I remember Russia has been accidentally breaking into Swedish airspace like once a year for as long as I can remember. Submarines also sometimes "accidentally" end up close to Swedish shores.
It'd be interesting to see some total numbers, and compare other countries with how often it happens between Sweden/Russia.
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.
Russia and these NATO countries being probed are like the two siblings in the back seat. Mom, he's touching me. Stop touching your brother. Mom, he's holding his finger right next to me. Dad eventually says, don't make me pull this car over and start a global thermonuclear war
Not quite. Be careful, Russia invests a lot in disinformation campaigns and spreading (conflicting, but that is part of their doctrine) narratives. Bothsidisms and False Equivalency are some of the common tools in muddying the information sphere.
NATO and Europe did quite a lot to normalize relations with Russia. Russia was invited and became participant of the NATO program Partnership For Peace [0].
Very nice, but the secret services that took over the empire did and does not fancy a rule-based, harmonious order based on mutual relations, human rights, freedom of press etc. As any autocracy or kleptocracy understands, that is very much a threat to their power, beacuse
The imperative is on us to understand that message really well. It goes slowly unfortunately. It is hard for us to grok.
Notice how on our part, helped via tech oligarchs, there is an incessant bombardment to undermine support for those values. Kremlin troll factories are a thing, but the Chinese are speading up rapidly in the information sphere too. Especially youngsters are targeted.
The war has already begun, but we don´t want to see it. And that is dangerous.
___
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace
17 replies →
Except its always Russia instigating. We never sent someone to look at the spire of Saint Basil (the pathetic excuse offered for explaining the presence of GRU officers in Salisbury carrying out chemical warfare), or really struck at their weak points.
4 replies →
Humorous yet concerning that our governments act like children.
This is strange to me because this is basically forcing drills that better prepare their enemy.
Sound the fire alarm over a birthday cake candle once, and you've got a drill making people get better at evacuating.
Sound the fire alarm over a birthday cake candle several times a week, and people learn the alarm means there's no fire, no need to rush, they've got time to finish that e-mail and grab their coat.
If you never go to war with your enemy, your enemy's continued preparations are wasted money and resources (both political and economic), aren't they?
2 replies →
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.
> If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands.
As a European, I'd say there is just about 0 chance of the EU unilaterally supporting Russian taken any occupied areas to themselves and Ukraine surrendering. Not only would it signal to Russia that they can take European land without consequences, but public opinion is very much against any sort of cessation of defenses. In my ~30 years I've never seen as strong NATO support from the common man in countries like Sweden and Spain as there is today.
> As a European, I'd say there is just about 0 chance of the EU unilaterally supporting Russian taken any occupied areas to themselves
I agree, but it's not about accepting or saying it's a good idea, it's about whether European countries can replace the US support enough that Ukraine can reasonably keep defending themselves.
12 replies →
[flagged]
6 replies →
"If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses."
How did that not work then yet?
They question you're really asking is "why is the war taking so long?"
Because it's a war.
33 replies →
I would say because China and North Korea joined the train of gravy, to the point to NK selling food to Russian Army. Maybe India also helped to sustain the Russian economy for a while.
In any case Russia losing its oil refineries one by one is the real deal here.
> So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months
Unsurprisingly this week after Macron speech, "French" farmers decided to organize again on groups directed by leaders and block and destroy Spanish cargo trucks at the frontier, without any policemen to be found at place.
Is obvious that somebody is trying again the old trick to confront and divide in the EU. We had seen the same before in Poland, etc.
But a trick overused can became counterproductive. I'm sure that Macron and other in EU can sum deux and deux and understand that surrender is not an option anymore. Is not just Ukraine but also their own political survival what is at stake. If they let this agents roam free and grow, they will lose gradually the power.
Would be an economical win for Europe if the US drew their aid. The amount of money needed to be spent in military aid across Europe would create markets within the region that would in the longer run create good wealth.
Alone from that reason, USA will not pull their aid. USA cannot afford losing Europe as an arms client
It would be so nice to not be dragged into this war by the aggressor. Russia is playing a very stupid game here.
> Russia is playing a very stupid game here.
They are not, if you take the larger context into account - and that is China and their saber rattling not just against Taiwan but also against everyone else in what China thinks is "their" influence sphere such as the Philippines.
Russia's warmongering (not just in Ukraine, but also via Syria, Iran and Yemen!) is breaking apart both the US and EU internally - recent elections have shown that both populations are pretty much fed up with the wars and their consequences, and once enough countries either fall to Putin's 5th column outright or their governments pull a Chamberlain, China can be relatively certain no one will intervene too much when they decide that now is the best time to annex other countries.
21 replies →
[flagged]
Russia has been striking civilian targets throughout Ukraine with ballistic missiles since the beginning of the war.
How is allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS on military targets in Russia an escalation?
39 replies →
The USA, UK and France approving the use of the long-range missiles was described as a response to Russia using North Korean soldiers.
4 replies →
> are escalating the war (they started, with the long-range missiles),
Wrong. Using long range missiles is not an escalation. Russia has been using them against Ukrainian lands for years now. Why shouldn't Ukraine be allowed to use them against Russian land?
8 replies →
[flagged]
Public opinion is being manipulated hard, the U.S. just closed down its embassy in Kyiv:
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-war-latest-us-shuts-...
The current U.S. administration wants to make the most out of the remaining 60 days. Perhaps they have a little help:
https://www.wired.com/story/inside-the-77th-brigade-britains...
Russia will not stop taking its land in Kursk back because the Americans tell them to do so, this is just Western delusion, and, as I've said before on this forum, a complete misunderstanding coming from the Westerners on how Russia operates.
> devastating sanctions
Devastating for Europe, you mean.
I'm very curious, can any European here, or perhaps a German for specificity, tell me whether they believe these sanctions have harmed Russia more than Europe?
Also it would be better if any Russians here could answer a similar question
20 replies →
Neither will Ukraine try to take their territory back as much as sycophants and dictator-appeasers think Ukraine have no agency
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.
Destroying the gas pipeline between Estonia and Finland did take it out for like six months. I think it may have had some negative impact on Estonian electricity prices during that time.
Could this disturb crypto operations in any way?
Not really. If the internet works, sending and using crypto works and it doesn’t use much bandwidth.
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.
Does "Chinese ship" really mean anything here? As far as I understand the ship official registration is a very vague concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
and according this tweet https://x.com/erikkannike/status/1858883945607094541/history
"So - according to Russian federal port records, the Chinese ship suspected of cutting the communications cables in the Baltic Sea was captained by a Russian citizen (one Stechentsev A.E.). Interestingly Yui Peng 3 was only transferred to its current owner in China earlier this month.
The ship is carrying goods/oil from Ust-Luga in Russia, to Port Said in Egypt. Same captain also comandeered URSUS ARCTOS also carrying goods from Ust-Luga to Egypt. Mapped using @SensusQ . "
1 reply →
Hard to say. They will claim this is only Flag of convenience as they are caught. However China still has the opportunity to say that this is something for their law enforcement to take care of not international, and then give the captain "a slap on the wrist".
What we don't know is if China knew they were going to try this beforehand or not. Flag of Convenience is common enough that we can't be sure. This could have been planned on the high level from China and we would never know - something conspiracy theorists will run with! If China knew they would probably give the crew a sever punishment, but unofficially it is for getting caught and not doing the act. Most likely though China didn't know before hand.
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.)
> The international order is often called the 'US-led rules-based interntional order'.
There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically). They're completely at odds - often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.
The US is king of Grey zone actions. Random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Cuba, etc. - the list is very long.
So when the US complains about Russia doing similar things (often responding to provocation by the US or NATO), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".
https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/the-u-s-ma...
Russia engages in random drone strikes, funding insurgency and terror groups, invading countries without international approval, blockading Ukraine, etc. - the list is very long. Indeed, russia appears to be king of grey zone actions.
So when russia complains about the US doing similar things (often responding to provocation by russia), the complaints can easily be filed in the "hypocrisy bin".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
> There's the actual international law (and the UN) and there's the US-led rules-based international order (ie, what the US wants basically).
Those are the same 'order', the same thing. The UN and international law are unquestionable, essential parts of the international order.
> often times the US (and Israel or a couple of other minor countries) vote against or simply flout whatever the rest of the UN wants.
Agreed, as I discussed in the GP: the US and its partners often violate those rules and let themselves off the hook, as status quo powers tend to do. It doesn't excuse it at all, but that's not inconsistent with the rules-based order.
Also, with a veto on UN Security Council decisions, if the US votes against something then it's not law.
> 'US-led rules-based interntional order
You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.
How are you going to ethnically cleanse Uyghurs in a rule based order, or run international crime networks at the level of statehood?
The question is: how are you going to integrate criminal and very powerful clangs in a world that is past the French Revolution? We tried, we failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace
Answer is: you can't, unless the common people take ownership over their own countries. Very difficult.
Just a reality check: the United States is currently funding and providing military equipment to Israel, who is carrying out an ethnic cleansing in the Gaza strip. Apparently, democratic governments also have a problem following the rules.
4 replies →
> You have to look deeper into what kind of government has a problem with an international rule-based order. It is not the democratic countries with trias politica that have a problem with that, but autocratic regimes.
The democratic countries follow the pattern of status quo powers. Is that because they are democratic or because they are status quo, or some of both?
The rules are of the status quo powers (matching their political cultures), by the status quo powers, for the status quo powers. Of course they follow those rules and support them. The rules seem to require a country to be a democracy to be legitimate - I agree with that as necessary to legitimacy (not sufficient), but obviously that doesn't suit non-democratic countries.
And like status quo powers, when they break the rules - most prominently the US many times, such as the Iraq war; the EU treatment of refugees and undocumented immigrants; and currently by Israel with US sponsorship - then they let themselves off the hook. They engineer technicalities, such as the weak UN resolution arguably authorizing the Iraq invasion; or just look the other way. They say they can't be handcuffed etc. (And some of those actions may be the right choice - I'm not judging - but they certainly violate the rules.)
3 replies →
Not like the US follows rules it tells others to follow. Hypocrite in charge.
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
It should be noted that Putin was personally an enforcer for St Petersburg's mayor Anatoly Sobchak[1] in the early 1990s, and his "circle of friends" from that time now mans key positions of the entire government. For example, Viktor Zolotov[2], Sobchak's bodyguard and Putin's judo partner, is now in charge of National Guard, despite not having qualifications for the job.
Russia is literally run buy thugs who ran protection rackets not so long ago. So there's much more to this than just a fitting figure of speech. Someone from the worst parts of LA would be better equipped to understand and deal with such people than those who spent their teens and early adulthood playing Model UN at a foreign relations club.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatoly_Sobchak
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Zolotov
One theme of cyberpunk is that Russia remains a gangster regime in the future. William Gibson's "Kombinat".
This is basically Russian retaliation for US providing Ukraine with ATACMS and first Ukrainian attack using ATACMS.
The "retaliation" against US is to disrupt communications between.. Finland and Germany?
Applying the same logic, Ukraine should retaliate against Russia for bombing their hospitals with an attack on.. Iranian civilian infrastructure? Did I get that right?
Russia is fighting "Western fascists" and NATO. Don't try to understand this.
1 reply →
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.