Russian Cable Attacks 'Threaten To Cut Off World's Internet' (telegraph.co.uk) 106
Military chiefs at Nato have been warned of global internet blackouts following a string of suspected Russian attacks on subsea cables. From a report: Telecoms companies including Vodafone, O2 owner Telefonica and Orange have written to UK, EU and Nato officials warning that a rise in sabotage incidents was putting critical services at risk. In an open letter, they wrote: "The repercussions of damage to subsea cables extend far beyond Europe, potentially affecting global internet and power infrastructure, international communications, financial transactions and critical services worldwide."
It comes after a spike in incidents relating to fibre optic cables on seabeds that carry huge volumes of data, voice and internet traffic between countries. More than 500 cables carry around 95pc of all international data, while their remote location makes them difficult and costly to monitor. At least 11 subsea cables have been damaged in the Baltic Sea since October 2023 and similar outages have been reported in the North Sea.
The incidents have fuelled fears of sabotage by hostile actors, with more than 50 Russian ships observed in areas of high cable density in the Baltic Sea. The UK is monitoring the Russian spy ship Yantar amid concerns that it is mapping critical underwater infrastructure. Concerns have also been raised about Chinese sabotage following a number of incidents around Taiwan.
It comes after a spike in incidents relating to fibre optic cables on seabeds that carry huge volumes of data, voice and internet traffic between countries. More than 500 cables carry around 95pc of all international data, while their remote location makes them difficult and costly to monitor. At least 11 subsea cables have been damaged in the Baltic Sea since October 2023 and similar outages have been reported in the North Sea.
The incidents have fuelled fears of sabotage by hostile actors, with more than 50 Russian ships observed in areas of high cable density in the Baltic Sea. The UK is monitoring the Russian spy ship Yantar amid concerns that it is mapping critical underwater infrastructure. Concerns have also been raised about Chinese sabotage following a number of incidents around Taiwan.
Two words: drone subs (Score:5, Interesting)
That assumes we have the will to use them (Score:1, Troll)
I mean, it makes absolutely no sense that he's throwing Ukraine to the wolves because forget their rare earth minerals, we've got plenty of those in the States if we just care to be bothered digging them up, we need them to stabilize Europe's food supply.
I don't know what Russia has over Trump but whatever the hell it is it must be absolutely freaking insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That assumes we have the will to use them (Score:5, Informative)
What deal?
There never was an option for a deal.
Russia wants ALL of Ukraine ... if possible back integrated into Russia without any hint of autonomy.
What deal is that?
Okay? We surrender? You can have it? Feel free to rape everyone and steal the washing machines and dish washers and the TVs ... Bonus points if you forcefully recruit our younger males and use them to invade Moldavia and Belarus!
I do not know about you, but most people would not call that "a deal".
Re: (Score:1)
What deal?
There never was an option for a deal.
Russia wants ALL of Ukraine ... if possible back integrated into Russia without any hint of autonomy.
What deal is that?
istanbul, march 2022. meaning 1 month after russian army crossed the border, which they called special military operation whose goal never was conquering ukraine but defuse the nato threat.
the negotiators were, for ukraine:
David Arakhamia – Head of the Ukrainian delegation, leader of President Zelenskyy's party in parliament.
Mykhailo Podolyak – Advisor to the President’s Office.
russia:
Vladimir Medinsky – Head of the Russian delegation, aide to President Putin.
Leonid Slutsky – S
Re: (Score:1)
among others. they reached a deal basically on
- ukrainian neutrality (no nato)
- ukraine free to join eu
- security guarantees from the west
- russian immediate withdrawal
- 15 year negotiation plan about crimea
- donbas status to be discussed separately
Ukraine had security guarantees from the west and Russia when it surrendered it's nuclear arsenal. Russia invaded anyway. There are no security guarantees without NATO membership.
"russian immediate withdrawal" and "donbas status to be discussed separately" are mutually exclusive. The Donbas is Ukraine. Without withdrawing from the Donbas, Russia is not withdrawing from Ukraine. So long as Russia could keep military forces in the Donbas pretending to be "freedom fighters," they could continue chipping away p
Re: (Score:2)
when it surrendered it's nuclear arsenal.
Ukraine didn't have a nuclear arsenal. They had nuclear weapons on their territory that were controlled by Russia.
The Donbas is Ukraine.
The population of Donbas is mostly ethnic Russian. The Minsk agreements would have left it as part of Ukraine while recognizing the rights of those ethnic Russians. Ukraine rejected that agreement.
There are no security guarantees without NATO membership.
The facts on the ground made it clear Ukraine would never be part of NATO. NATO had no tangible interests in Ukraine that would cause it to engage directly in a war with Russia.That neither the Ukrain
Re: That assumes we have the will to use them (Score:2)
No, the nukes came from the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union officially dissolved on December 26, 1991. The Russian Federation is not the USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ukraine had security guarantees from the west and Russia when it surrendered it's nuclear arsenal.
yes, that was before a western backed coup ousted the legitimate elected government, installed an interim puppet government (at which point russia seized crimea) which went on a nationalistic spree of discriminating cultural/ethnical russian ukrainians in the eastern/southern oblasts to the point of donetsk and luhansk seceeding, a civil war breaking out sponsored by cia and mi6 (yes, at that point russia supported the seccessionists), minsk agreements were signed and ignored (later admitted by merkel and h
Re: (Score:3)
That's the treaty which had Russia as a guarantor of Ukrainian security and in which "The Kremlin insisted that such action would occur only “on the basis of a decision agreed to by all guarantor states”—giving the likely invader, Russia, a veto as it was to be one of the guarantors." Right?
Of course it is. Rhetorical question.
The treaty would have effectively disarmed Ukraine [understandingwar.org], giving it half the army size that it had at the start of 2022 and also would have meant joint that Russia and Chi
Re: (Score:2)
Every time Russia signed a treaty and then broke it.
Ukraine rejected the Minsk agreements. In fact, Zelensky campaigned as an opponent of the Minsk agreements.
Ukraine would have been crazy to sign a treaty that even if it wasn't broken would have put them into a terrible situation.
You think they are going to end up in a better situation now? There is absolutely no chance of that. It will be decades before Ukraine recovers it it ever does. And it will still be in the shadow of its powerful neighbor. No better off than they would have been if they had negotiated a settlement.
NATO threat is a lie (Score:2)
for everybody else, parent is russian stooge/bot.
Bordering NATO threats are totally a lie and excuse for suckers. It only made sense security wise before everybody had nuclear missiles. Next door or 1000 miles away made no difference for generations.
Land invasions can be seen preparing long in advance the only surprise is when they are frequently posturing and never do anything; until they actually do. Of all nations, Russia has the least to worry about given their massive size and cold and history of faile
Re: (Score:1)
this all is publicly available information but ofc the fetid propaganda sewer you seem to bathe in never told you about it.
If that was public information and really had happened, you had posted a link.
And everyone would know it.
I never have heard about that. And as that was during COVID, I either was in France or Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
I never have heard about that.
point in case. yet you feel entitled to repeat senseless slogans of "putin bad" and make bold claims as if you had any clue.
Re: (Score:1)
> They should have made a deal.
Example deal that would work?
Re:That assumes we have the will to use them (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are delusional if you think that the USA had anything to do with whether Ukraine decided to fight for their independence and freedom or not. Ukraine fights because they do not want to become Russians.
The "never had a chance" shtick is also fairly hollow at this point when Russia's economy is at the point where only the war is keeping it afloat.
Russia's industrial growth has stopped, but the military industry is still growing meaning it's cannibalizing the civilian industry and it still can't keep up with the Russian losses. Meanwhile the Russian war chest (also called the Russian National Wealth Fund) has shrunk to a third of what it was, and the Russian state budget which assumes an oil price of $75 per barrel is looking at a budget crisis with the currently looming threat of a $50 per barrel price. Russian banks are in a very poor state.
If the war ends soon, there are some very serious economic shocks about to happen. And if if stretches out further, the Russian civilian economy might collapse under the weight of the demands of the war economy.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are delusional if you think that the USA had anything to do with whether Ukraine decided to fight for their independence and freedom or not. Ukraine fights because they do not want to become Russians.
The "never had a chance" shtick is also fairly hollow at this point when Russia's economy is at the point where only the war is keeping it afloat.
Russia's industrial growth has stopped, but the military industry is still growing meaning it's cannibalizing the civilian industry and it still can't keep up with the Russian losses. Meanwhile the Russian war chest (also called the Russian National Wealth Fund) has shrunk to a third of what it was, and the Russian state budget which assumes an oil price of $75 per barrel is looking at a budget crisis with the currently looming threat of a $50 per barrel price. Russian banks are in a very poor state.
If the war ends soon, there are some very serious economic shocks about to happen. And if if stretches out further, the Russian civilian economy might collapse under the weight of the demands of the war economy.
Pretty much this. Russia is looking at an accelerated version of what killed the Soviet Union. A huge military industrial complex built at the expense of industry and civilian infrastructure. Except what took 50 years for the Soviets is going to take 10 for Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
So once again, defeating Russia is the goal. Not supporting Ukraine.
But unlike the Soviet Union, I don't think Russia needs an external threat to survive. If the threat of Ukraine really is what's holding it together then the end of the war with Ukraine should have the same effect as the end of the cold war did on the Soviet Union.
I think the real danger is the collapse of NATO. Its original purpose was to deter the Soviet Union. The Ukraine war has given it new life. But its not at all clear people are g
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are delusional if you think that the USA had anything to do with whether Ukraine decided to fight for their independence and freedom or not. Ukraine fights because they do not want to become Russians.
Without NATO support, the war would have been over a long time ago no matter what Ukraine decided. If you are right, then Ukraine's leadership was truly delusional.
if if stretches out further, the Russian civilian economy might collapse under the weight of the demands of the war economy.
I think that is and has been just wishful thinking. It would take a lot for the Russian economy to collapse to the level Ukraine's has. If the Russian economy does collapse, it will have no benefit for Ukraine. But I think that idea lays out clearly that for many of its western proponents the war is not about helping Ukraine, but defeating Russi
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has invaded Ukraine, there is no need for them to fight to the bitter end. All they need to do is to withdraw to end the war, and the Russian people know that.
Germany capitulated in WW1 because they could no longer afford to feed their people despite that, apart from the very opening weeks of 1914, no part of the war had been fought on German soil. Bombing was minimal at that point in time due to the primitive technology, but the blockade had ruined their economy and produced severe food shortages on
Re: (Score:2)
Russia has invaded Ukraine, there is no need for them to fight to the bitter end.
It appears the end is not likely to be bitter for Russia doesn't it? They are winning the war and Ukraine is losing. So it is Ukraine that needs to consider the bitter end.
All they need to do is to withdraw to end the war, and the Russian people know that.
The Russian people apparently support the war. Russia is fighting the war with what we would call a "volunteer army", although like the United States it's really a professional army. They aren't pulling people off the streets and sending them to the front lines. They have conscription, but those people aren't the ones fighting and dying.
Re: (Score:2)
But no way on the second, the "and Russians know that". Russians really do think this is a clash between western and their civilisation, that this is a fight for survival and all that. They're convinced that if they loose the war the west won't just agree to let them off the hook, but they'll want a puppet west-controlled government installed that'll basically allow the western financial class to plunder apart the country. And frankly, I don't see any different realistic scenario either.
That's what the state propaganda in Russia says. But independent polling shows that the majority of the Russians just wanted the war to end already in 2024. I guess it's still officially a special military operation, but I don't think they are locking up people just for calling it a war anymore.
Russia also capitulated in WW1 after it started to fall apart due to the war by the way.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Our current president is by all accounts a Russian asset.
You mean "agent." Asset implies that he's doing all of these things beneficial to Russia without a particular agenda or motive: like he's randomly doing things that happen to align with Russia's goals. The orange Strumpet is most definitely aware of what he's doing vis-a-vis Russia. He's an agent.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody is going to surmount a 7 million loss of voters."
Delusional Donald ran on the economy. If he tanks it, runs up inflation, destroys retirement accounts, and/or cuts SSA and Medicare/Medicaid there might be a LOT of people ready to run him out of town.
It's all well and good to talk about immigration, culture, trans people, etc.. But when you start messing with their money...
Re: All our problems are (Score:2)
Donnie controls the elections now, and Vance isn't going to certify a Democrat. Voter ID laws will be used to throw out tens of millions of ballots.
I guess time will tell if the American people roll over and take it. Shame though, we almost ran this system for a quarter of a millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what Russia has over Trump but whatever the hell it is it must be absolutely freaking insane.
Epstein has been credibly tied to intelligence agencies in the US and Israel and there are fairly solid claims that he has also been involved with Russia. Epstein was Trump's provider of rape victims. We could reasonably assume that Russia has evidence of Trump's pedophilic rapes.
Re: That assumes we have the will to use them (Score:3)
Yes, why would he?
Is it the many ties to Russian businessmen who lodge in his Trump tower?
Is it his desire to be friends with Putin, as proclaimed in 2013?
Is it the loans he got from the Russian oligarchs when his business was floundering?
Do they have kompromat on him?
Or are they ideologically aligned, and they just understand what the deal is: to milk the country as much as they can, and grab power by the pussy so they can then rape whomever they like without repercussion?
My guess: it is all of the above.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have thought that things like anchors/cutting equipment dragging along the sea bed would have been detectable acoustically, and that areas where cutting was likely to happen would already be under careful monitoring. Maybe not though, perhaps it wasn't considered worthwhile before. Or maybe instances of commercial shipping dragging anchors and the like are so frequent that it's a waste of time.
Anybody know?
Re: (Score:2)
1) You're expecting the US to act against Russia?
2) It'd be a lot more practical to blockade Russia entirely. No shipping via any vessel capable of destroying an Internet cable.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't the US and allies get low-cost autonymous drone subs to follow these ships and video their operations? Bonus: if we detect they're cutting cables, fire off a torpedo. That'll learn 'em!
The thing about subs is that they're fast and quiet and the thing about oceans is that they're large, I mean really large.
Also do we really want a bunch of armed subs running around with weapons and the ability to shoot without orders? I definitely cant see that a cruise ship would never be mistaken for a Typhoon class by an AI built by the lowest bidder... no siree, not ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Two words: drone subs (Score:2)
"mapping cables" = planting remote cable cut robots.
Re: (Score:2)
A big reason not to escalate to nuclear weapons is because the first team on the field to launch nuclear weapons gives the other team permission to act in kind. I doubt a first strike will necessarily define the winner
There is no winner. But a first strike can substantially reduce the other side's ability to retaliate.
Russian weapons are likely nonfunctional
Believing that is stupid beyond belief.
Re: (Score:2)
But a first strike can substantially reduce the other side's ability to retaliate.
Perhaps you want to check how long it takes for a missile to fly from one point of the planet to the other one. They retaliate long long before you hit them ...
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you want to check how long it takes for a missile to fly from one point of the planet to the other one. They retaliate long long before you hit them ...
Yes, which is really the only reason the cold war stayed cold.
But there is still an advantage to striking first. Even if some of your targets are no longer there you will still hit some and, with MIRVS, each rocket has multiple warheads. One missile can target multiple sites and when it hits a missile site that wasn't launched it takes out multiple warheads. There are also submarines which can be relatively close to their targets but which have multiple missiles. But it they are located, they provide a ver
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We just have to convince Trump that Putin things he's a loser and a chump.
Okay so we could do that (Score:1, Troll)
Asking for an orange friend.
Accidents? (Score:1, Informative)
There is no evidence that there has been any increase in the number of cables cut or damaged. These are common occurrences around the world.
That said, underwater cables are vulnerable to sabotage and I would assume that many countries, including the United States, have the capacity to take them out in the event it serves our interests. The claims about Russia and China appear to be part of the current propaganda war. Its not really clear what either have to gain.
Re: Accidents? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We know it is sabotage.
How do you know? You read it on the internet?
Re: Accidents? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Accidents? (Score:2)
Re: Accidents? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... they arrested the crew and confiscated the ships on several occasions
Actually on two occasions, as I recall. Out of hundreds of incidents where cables were cut around the world. My take is this is cherry-picked propaganda. You only hear about incidents that fit the narrative.
Re: Accidents? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I have friends working as seamen both in the Baltic sea and at oceans. They say that the maritime community has no doubt whatsoever about the recent incidents. The only explanation is sabotage. It would be technically impossible to randomly damage the cables.
The explanations offered by the vessels may look OK to a journalist, but any seaman from sailor to captain just would not take it.
Re: (Score:2)
The only explanation is sabotage. It would be technically impossible to randomly damage the cables.
So how do your friends explain the hundreds of incidents of cables being cut that happen every year? I don't think your friends know what they are talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Accidents happen. Intentionally dragging an anchor for miles is not an accident. https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/30... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you when the first incidents happened, because there is indeed a propaganda war. But the summary says there has been a spike. Do you have data on this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pure accident that Russian ships turn off transponders and drag anchors around for miles and miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Pure accident that Russian ships turn off transponders and drag anchors around for miles and miles.
Ships drag anchors when the wind drags the ship and the anchor doesn't hold.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Fair is fair, I guess (Score:2)
Relatively minor (Score:5, Informative)
NordStream attack/accident 478,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere. During the same year (2022), U.S. fracking was responsible for over 26.4 million metric tons of methane emission.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Single release, yes.
The largest single release of greenhouse gases in history was likely the rupture of the Nord Stream pipeline in 2022, which released an estimated 370,000 to 500,000 tonnes of methane into the atmosphere. This release may have been the biggest single methane release ever recorded. Other significant releases include the Secunda CTL plant in South Africa, a synthetic fuel and chemicals from coal plant, which emitted 56.5 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
So the Secunda CTL plant releases the upper estimate every three days! Again and again. It releases a hundred Nord Stream events every year.
Re:Fair is fair, I guess (Score:5, Interesting)
Insert Neocon Cyber BS .. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The United States Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM
I have an idea (Score:1)
No more internet, you say? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The one-world economy and one-world society is a failure.
Even one small town can never get along, how would that possibly work on a global scale?
Economies around the world are way too imbalanced to be doing day-to-day commerce with each other. For a while it was great buying cheap Chinese trinkets and then saving a buck on your expensive electronic widget, but that imbalance just pumps money in one direction wh
Shock, horror. (Score:2)
HerÃtique, I know.
Where did people get the idea that the Internet was somehow immune to attack? The phrase normally used is "resiliant", not "proof. As links get destroyed, performance degrades, and if enough links are broken, then you lose connectivity.
Units (Score:3)
More than 500 cables carry around 95pc of all international data
95 parsecs, no kidding?
Simple , just sink the ships (Score:1)
Simple , just sink the ships who "accidentaly" hit those cables.