Basically, Russia's goal is not so much to cut some cables but rather to create fear in order to reduce support for Ukraine. A loud public response is not necessarily in our interest because it makes their attacks more effective.
You've got to wonder if it'll work out well for them. They basically want to take control of Ukraine and this sort of stuff is just going to have Europe saying sod that.
Arguably this is exactly an example of that? There is also a sanctioning scheme on oil and various other goods. Not saying these are perfect, or even sufficient. But which measures do you have in mind?
The article shows Sweden doing exactly that, following Finland doing same in December. So The Russia-adjacent Baltic states got the message late last year.
Are these sabotages considered an offense worth of NATO response? If not, what is the standard there or has it not been tested with this because it's just an "Internet cable"?
I'm not an expert but I don't think it is, because they took place in international waters and unless there's proof to the contrary, they're done by civilian vessels. And it being done by dragging anchors makes it plausible deniability of being accidents.
It's really annoying to be honest. Makes me wish for stricter laws for international waters when it comes to undersea infrastructure.
No, I don't think so. Or rather, what kind of response? Invoking Article 5 and then what?
It seems like just another chapter in the hybrid warfare. NATO countries can respond in other ways, more sanctions, more military support for Ukraine, undercover actions, restricting Russian vessel movement in the Baltic Sea etc.
Didn't they already by forcing people to pay in rubles? Anyway it's not like Russia has any negotiating powers with the rest of europe at the moment, we're not buying their gas until they withdraw and repatriate.
Of course history of this goes all the way back to the very first thing the British did in WW1 was to cut the telegraph cables between Europe and America https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42367551
My point is that the calculus for Russia isn't "is there a precedent for breaking this type of international law?", it's rather "can we get away with it?". NS2 didn't figure in the Russia's calculus when planning the undersea cable interruption.
> Ultimately, international law has to be enforced by someone
And who has more moral right to do that than the superpower that supports a genocide, invaded iraq for no actual reason (and the whistleblower who called it "suicided")?
USA doesn't enforce "law", they enforce oppression and the interests of a few rich guys.
I find it weird how some people think that the country who illegally invaded Iraq on a whim enabled a genocide in Gaza could possibly be trusted to enforce international law on any other matter.
There was a period when a law based international order theoretically could have been implemented by the US but since 1991 it's always just followed the principle of "fuck you my guns are bigger than yours" with some bullshit legalistic pretext.
Basically, Russia's goal is not so much to cut some cables but rather to create fear in order to reduce support for Ukraine. A loud public response is not necessarily in our interest because it makes their attacks more effective.