UK eyes new laws as cable sabotage blurs line between war and peace Cyberattacks and undersea cable sabotage are blurring the line between war and peace and exposing holes in UK law, a government minister has warned lawmakers. Earlier this year, the UK government published a Strategic Defence Review, which proposes a new bill to cover the prospect of state-sponsored cybercrime and subsea cable …
> in international waters, so national laws are difficult to enforce
- That would also be a problem with a UK submarine cable Act.
- Again, IANAL, but surely international law on e.g. piracy could also be applied?
Police, lawyers and governments can always find something. Hey, wait, just call cable sabotage "terrorism", the modern catch-all.
Governments ignore "international law" when it goes against national interests (e.g. privateers vs pirates) - so international law does not really exist.
If the cable sabotage occurs in notionally national waters, seizing the relevant ship as evidence may work - but beware retaliation from the "owner" country.
One of the issues is that the cables are in international waters
Most cable damage seems to happen by anchor dragging (or that's what's blamed) which happens in shallower water, so within economic zones, if not national water(*) so there's some chance of getting the miscreants. If a submarine is chopping the cable at depth there's probably little hope of even having a clue who did it.
(*) IANAL, so if anyone can explain laws about territorial waters, economic zones, continental shelves, etc, feel free.
If a submarine is doing it at depth, then everyone knows who did it because there's so few vessels physically capable and their owners are known.
The trouble is that there's very little that can be done about it, because it's a nation-state.
A nation-state willing to do that doesn't care if their ambassador is summoned for a talking to. They might care if their embassy gets closed, but that can only really be done once.
"The maximum fine of a few thousands of pounds is pathetic, surely the fines should at least rise with the rate of inflation?"
That law was probably written when the only real threat was accidental damage caused by negligence, eg ships/boats dragging anchors in the wrong place. There are probably other laws with higher levels of "punishment" for sabotage or similar, but as you say, "international waters" so whatever law used is going to be difficult to enforce.
That law was probably written when the only real threat was accidental damage caused by negligence, eg ships/boats dragging anchors in the wrong place. There are probably other laws with higher levels of "punishment" for sabotage or similar, but as you say, "international waters" so whatever law used is going to be difficult to enforce.
This is kinda the point for the proposed legislation, ie a specific offence, or upgraded offence of sabotage, or intentional damage. Which would then require proving intent. The way it works currently is cable operators attempt to identify the vessel responsible using marine & satellite data, then can make a civil claim against the ship owner for damages. Which isn't easy, and gets complicated by needing proof, and identifying the owner and who to sue, given a lot of ships are chartered or registered out of flag states that make litigation difficult.
I had this explained to me by the General Counsel of one company I worked for after one of their cables were cut, and it's a complicated and expensive process, especially recovering any money. So it might be possible to win a claim in say, UK courts which might get payment from the vessels insurers. Or it might result in a lien against the vessel, which might mean it can be arrested and detained if it enters a UK port. Currently I think this gets a whole lot more complicated with the 'shadow fleet', which basically means ships that aren't insured by the usuall insurers (ie Lloyds or the big & mostly UK based insurers) because sanctions mean 'Russian' vessels can't buy insurance from the UK, EU, US. So Russia provides insurance instead, but then we can't sue in Russia or instruct lawyers there because of the sanctions.
Which I think might also have long-term consequences, ie sanctions forced Russia to create or enhance their own marine insurance services that take business away from the UK. Much like banking sanctions have lead to the creation of Russian alternatives to SWIFT that BRICS nations are now using, along with things like the Mir card challenging the dominance of Visa & Mastercard.
"Why is separate legislation needed for cables?"
Presumably because the malicious act occurs in international waters or at least outside UK territorial waters. If the perpetrators didn't originate from the UK or have some nexus with the UK it's difficult to see how UK domestic legislation is applicable without exhibiting the mind blowing gall of the US's extraterritorial application of its own domestic laws.
The US is->was a superpower while the UK would be having a spectacularly delusional day to imagine it was in that class since Suez.
I suppose such acts might be classed as piracy but the relevant (codified) international law seems a bit of a dog's breakfast especially when the most frequent party facing such charges has been Green Peace.
Drawing on the earlier concept hostis humani generis and reequiping Royal Navy vessels with yard-arms might prove a more satisfactory deterrent to the cable cutter.
I've previously written on the subject in this forum.
Because the malicious actors are likely to use shadow fleet ships and 'fishing vessels' to do the deed, passing a couple laws would do the trick.
The first edict should state that undersea data cable runs are extensions of national property/security, and therefore the sovereignty of the nation that lays them. This would give jurisdiction.
Second, passing a law that requires the military to seize suspect vessels for disposal in the event of 'accidents', would put teeth in the law.
That should stop it pretty quickly, in my estimation. Especially since seizure would likely find a lot of spy equipment and covert operatives.
The first edict should state that undersea data cable runs are extensions of national property/security, and therefore the sovereignty of the nation that lays them. This would give jurisdiction.
That already exists. So Nord Stream is/was a JV between Germany and Russia giving Germany and Russia jurisdiction. Telecom & power cables are owned by individual entities incorporated somewhere. It still leaves the challenge of enforcing any legislation, charges or fines and how any new legislation would fit with centuries old legislation like UNCLOS or general maritime law.
Second, passing a law that requires the military to seize suspect vessels for disposal in the event of 'accidents', would put teeth in the law.
Countries can already arrest ships in their own territorial waters, and if they've got evidence can seize the ship until fines are paid. Which we've been doing with 'sanctioned' superyachts owned by oligrarchs. Might not be entirely legal or moral, but possession is 9/10ths of the law, and taxpayers can foot the bills until governments can find an excuse to flog other people's property. But then other countries could start doing the same thing. On the high seas, it gets a bit trickier. Our navies regularly do drug interdictions and seize a lot of drugs and the boats carrying them. Estonia recently tried to force a 'suspect' ship into their territorial waters so they could arrest it, which is closer to piracy. Or just imposing a blockade, and those are how wars get started.
That should stop it pretty quickly, in my estimation. Especially since seizure would likely find a lot of spy equipment and covert operatives.
That isn't actually illegal in international waters. And is something navies do all the time. Plus it could be another of those escalatory things if navies stop just chasing submarines out of their waters, and instead try to force them to the surface and capture them.
"The first edict should state that undersea data cable runs are extensions of national property/security, and therefore the sovereignty of the nation that lays them. This would give jurisdiction."
Firstly, if you're talking about data cables between countries then how could they be national property of a single country?
Secondly, AFAIK the vast majority of undersea data cables are run by private companies (and in many cases by companies that are not headquartered in, and perhaps not even based in, those countries), not by governments and so how can "the sovereignty of the nation that lays them" apply when no nation lays them? Especially when the companies that lay the cables (specialised companies) are typically doing so on behalf of the company/companies that "own" the cables.
… and no one would give a shit.
You would never get consensus- International Law, Maritime Law etc…. and counties vetoing prosecutions just ignoring it…. If you ever could catch anyone / which we can’t even do to some criminals in boats across the channel.
Hell we can’t/won’t even stopping State sponsored genocide in Gaza but are bitching about gobby bands at Glasto and proscribing peaceful protesters who put a little paint on a plane. Pathetic.
Really?? When was the last time(s!) you drove faster than the posted speed limit? And got away with it?
Law by itself achieves nothing - it is aggressive and continuous enforcement that makes laws effective. Governments of all stripes, in almost all countries, have consistently ignored this simple fact for decades. Because at the end of the day passing impressive sounding legislation costs almost nothing compared to actually enforcing it.
ex. member UKELA (now retired)
Really?? When was the last time(s!) you drove faster than the posted speed limit? And got away with it?
I'd have to take a 5th on that <hic>, but motorway speed limits are often well above the posted limit. Despite speed cameras, average speed cameras and assorted spoiling tactics. Then with a decent lawyer, can often be ignored anyway.. If you have the money to protect your licence.
Law by itself achieves nothing - it is aggressive and continuous enforcement that makes laws effective.
I think there's also a danger that automated enforcement becomes a revenue generating scheme rather that maybe addressing more dangerous behaviour. So maybe raise motorway speed limits to 80mph. Then whether AI or smarter traffic management systems could do things like fine people for tailgating.
Governments of all stripes, in almost all countries, have consistently ignored this simple fact for decades. Because at the end of the day passing impressive sounding legislation costs almost nothing compared to actually enforcing it.
Yep. Pass new laws, crime rates increase. Then like you say, it's trying to enforce them which means all the time and resources to gather evidence, present to CPS and hope it goes somewhere. Which I suspect would be difficult making a criminal case against a vessel involved in a cable cut. So first prove it was intentional rather than deliberate, then figure out how to prosecute maybe a Philipino captain aboard a Liberian flagged vessel owned by a Honduran entity that might be chartered by a Russian, Indian, Chinese company. Which is why I suspect the existing offence is rarely prosecuted and it's left to the cable owner/operators and their insurers to try it via civil process.
But having been involved in submarine cable systems, it's a curious and rather niche business. Sometimes with interesting opex costs, like paying a navy to patrol cable routes inshore and chase off fishermen. But there are a finite number of patrol vessels, a lot of cables & ships, and a whole lot of ocean to patrol. Which is why it'd probably be better to invest in patrol ships instead of trying to create new legislation that may not be enforceable.
ex. member UKELA (now retired)
Congrats! I guess another challenge with new legislation, or increasing the penalties for existing legislation would be which agency could actually enforce & prosecute, especially if trying to arrest vessels at sea or in international waters.
International law is a joke. It is trotted out for our public consumption when we don't like something another nation has done and ignored when we do something. Russia invaded, the awful people breaking the rules based order. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, funding terrorism, but that's different because there were bad people there. At least in the bad old days we had the balls to say because we have bigger guns, now we make some pathetic excuse about being on the right side. It's all for our own public consumption because we vote, all the world's leaders know it's BS. Our voting is controlled as well, anyone independent simply doesn't get any reach with their message.
Because we aren't talking about a bit of interference to Radio 3 caused by old drunk Dave with his ham radio or dodgy CB gear, we are talking about sabotage of a cable which could be carrying thousands of phone calls, terabits of data traffic etc and a 5 grand fine is not a deterrent, though it would be amusing to see OFCOM try to confiscate a Russian warship
...and unfortunately, due to the UK's disastrous failure of energy policy, we will in future be massively dependant upon undersea power cables, both international interconnectors, and to offshore wind farms. As we've seen in Ukraine, the Russian modus operandi (other than terror attacks on civilians) is attacking power infrastructure.
Mind you, as Elsergio notes, nobody expects the UK government to achieve much by more legislation.
Not if it is the council or central government. They simply re-mark it as not green belt, compulsory purchase at below market value under the new law, sell it cheap to a developer, datacenter, solar farm etc and retire into the non executive advisory role.
"is attacking power infrastructure"
Here in France, and possibly other places, they're pushing for electric cars, electric heating, electric everything.
So we're all going to be dependent upon one set of wires overseen by one company (two if you count the identity crisis that is Enedis) and it all sounds like a very "all eggs in one basket" kind of arrangement. Particularly when they're like "we don't necessarily know if we can supply all this power in the middle of winter" (you had ONE job...).
"So we're all going to be dependent upon one set of wires overseen by one company"
Better than the UK, where we have approaching a thousand different companies with supply, generation or distribution licences in our electricity system. We do have a single state owned grid operator, but then six different commercial outfits who own and maintain the grid and distribution systems. Having a national monopolistic electricity system is far more efficient than having all these different companies looking to make a buck. This is because British politicians are clueless fuckwits who think that free markets solve everything (and then they interfere in the markets, and wonder why they don't get the outcomes they expect)..
You Frenchies also had the foresight to build a decent size fleet of nuclear power stations, and that's given you dependably priced electricity, and capacity to sell. In the UK we're reliant upon imported gas for CCGT, praying the wind blows, burning the forests of Louisiana (Drax), and hoping for the availability of excess power from surrounding nations, and we have both very poor generation capacity margins, and the most expensive electricity in the developed world. I'd rather be French......no, I didn't say that.
>This is because British politicians are clueless fuckwits who think that free markets solve everything
Or they are quite smart and know that
1, The free markets are going to offer them jobs after they leave
2, They know the public can be pointed to blame evil foreign billionaire owned business when there is a failure, rather than decades of underinvestment
3, Every pay demand doesn't become a confidence vote in the government and a rush to the IMF
> We do have a single state owned grid operator, but then six different commercial outfits who own and maintain the grid and distribution systems. Having a national monopolistic electricity system is far more efficient than having all these different companies looking to make a buck.
Nope, the UK "National Grid" is not exactly the national grid, it is the grid for England, Scotland, and Wales (i.e. GB). Northern Ireland is part of the "Single Electricity Market" for the island of Ireland, operated by SONI ("https://www.soni.ltd.uk/grid/how-grid-and-market-interact") in NI and EirGrid in Ireland.
Therefore there is no "national" monopolistic electricity system in the UK, there are 2 (1 each for GB and NI)
Plus you get a heatwave and they have to snooze some of the nukes down so they don't steam boil local waterways, the Mediterranean, and jellyfishes ...
And all the good food recipes go like "simmer this assortment of meat and vegetables in a stew for a minimum of 3 hours to fully develop and blend aromas and flavors" which is prohibitively expensive given extortionate metered energy prices ... even bakeries faced bankrupty over exorbitant energy cost for just baking baguettes.
The solution may be to go fully off-grid with rooftop solar panels and a Godin cast-iron stove from the familistère de guise for winter cooking and heating ... cut the cables and the price gouging of people's eyeballs!
"The solution may be to go fully off-grid with rooftop solar panels "
It will be a long dark winter! I looked at this and concluded getting through winter would be tough, maybe impossible without using diesel generators. There are days without sun or wind and the energy consumption of a family, living as is now normal, is considerable. But yes those cast iron stoves would be a help but what would the fuel be? You have to assume no gas or oil. So then we have to start cutting trees down and we have already cut down most of them in this country. If for the whole country there would be not a tree left within a year which I bet would be an ecological disaster.
No you are not dependent on one set of wires, you will be dependent on not complaining, doing what you are told and giving up any wealth you accumulate, "if" you want to survive. It will be possible to switch you off without going through full judicial process and you will need a very expensive full judicial process to get switched on. Don't believe for one second that they are fools, quite the opposite, they are clever, manipulative and patient.
This is so mind bogglingly dumb that you can only conclude they intend to either destroy us or make Europe one nation or governance region. How can any people serving government give up self-sufficiency in energy and food. Yet they are doing both.
How exactly would you go about collecting a fine from a foreign nation operating subversively in international waters?
Well, first you'd have to collect evidence and if criminal, be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt who was responsible. This seems to be rather challenging, especially given the largest act of intentional sabotage in European history has gone unresolved, ie who was responsible for the attacks on the Nord Stream pipeline? Then if we make it illegal to attack a foreign state's infrastructure, or decide that's an act of agression, we might have to stop conducting cyberwarfare against foreign states.
Didn't the French try that with a Greenpeace ship? I think their mistake was to do it in a New Zealand port instead of at sea.
Just needs a covert submarine shared between friendly countries (*). Everybody throws some money in the pot (#), nobody owns it, nobody knows where it is at any given time. Sort of like the A-Team underwater. And when there's a job that needs doing, they'll go along and get it done and be gone before the dust has settled. Who is anybody going to threaten? It's not under orders of any specific country, it's not on any payroll, it's just there haunting the places Europe wants left in peace...
* - Specifically *not* including the UK, that government is too beholden to the US and the US is too cosy with the likely enemies.
# - A decent amount of money so bad guys don't make a better offer.
If you're going to stop the enemy, you have to hurt them. A fine isn't going to do it. Nor is seizing the ship, sinking it, imprisoning or killing the crew. The ships are junk and Russia does not mind losing personnel. Sinking some warships might do it, cutting off Kaliningrad might work, but those will have to wait for the post-Trump era.
Sinking some warships might do it, cutting off Kaliningrad might work
Not against Pootie Shortarse, who won't care about his own nationals being killed, and anyway reasons (probably correctly) that the Europeans are a bunch of softies afraid of conflict or killing a few people. Retaliatory actions against state sponsored sabotage need to have some similar vaguely plausible deniability, but to inflict significant costs on the initiator. I very much doubt that the poorly paid civil service policy makers will have the expertise or gumption to find a way of making that happen.
You will not stop Russia without massive loss of life and global economic disaster. The reason any alledged activity is low level is because they do not want all out war. Russia, is enormous, has lots of resource, has smart people, is used to coping with depravation and has a whole eastern border that we (West) do not control. Real war with Russia will hurt us equally no matter the outcome or it would have started years ago.
The problems we are getting into is the result of massive foreign policy f'k ups made to keep money and budgets flowing to people who need an evil empire opponent to justify the money.
If it's international waters could keel-hauling be reintroduced? Quite a significant punishment on a 200m long container ship.
Or walking the plank? Again maybe more significant these days where the deck is 50m up?
One suspects that the fine could be as high as you like, ol' Vlad won't be admitting culpability and paying up
Wikipedia suggests it can be done from bow to stern too but quotes Cecil Adams who mentions only "dragged under the keel and up the other side", which suggests a crosswize operation to me. Also, on page 78 (pdf p.80) of the June 1946 edition of The Bureau of Naval Personnel All Hands Information Bulletin, one finds "drawing it under the ship’s bottom from one fore yardarm to the other by means of whips", that also suggests transverse motion.
In both cases however, the key to the educational value of the measure seems to lie in the presence of barnacles ... (because you eat them? or not!)
No-one ever seems to be able to quote this mystical agreement about not "moving" NATO east. One comment from years ago does not override the sovereignty of an entire country, when Russia has broken at least a dozen agreements over Ukraine.
Nope, not really. The main Treaty/agreement was this one-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty
The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, also known as the "Big Treaty",was an agreement signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.
That friendship was obviously severly strained with the 2014 coup, civil war, Kiev's de-Russification policies, and stated ambition to join NATO. Then Poroshenko terminated the Treaty in 2018, and Ukrainians are still paying the price. The rest I think is trying to define the purpose of NATO. Formed as a counter to the Warsaw Pact, which is long gone. But to keep the defence industry busy, NATO needed new enemies, or just the old one.
So assorted useful idiots decided Russia was that existential threat, despite having been good for business with a lot of beneficial trade between the EU & Russia. That had allowed the EU economy to overtake the US, which simply could not be allowed. So along came Nuland with her cookies to Kiev, and her infamous phone conversation with Ambassador Pyatt where she promised to 'Fsck the EU', which with their coup, she did.
So now our useful idiots are screaming that we're going to be at war with Russia within 5yrs, or if we don't stop them now they'll be in Paris by xmas. The US seems like it's pretty much done with Ukraine and is dumping their sh!tshow onto the EU, which can't afford to keep the US regime change going for long.. And none of our 'leaders' seem to have a clue how to stop Ukraine's civil war, pay for it, or getting back to business with Russia. But the longer it goes on, the worse it gets for Ukraine. Given the EU is openly hostile to Russia and is militarising, Russia has been pointing out that the EU morphing from a trading bloc to a military one means EU membership is probably now off the table for Ukraine. Not that EU membership would be possible until Ukraine implemented some form of democracy, and respect for their citizens rights.
Great comment! The depth of your analysis, sir, is astonishing! Just a couple of little questions.
1. For sure, Ukraine leaving the friendship treaty might as well have been a invitation saying 'invade our countries, bomb our hospitals, and murder our civilians on drone hunts'. What other possible reading could you have? Who can blame Russia for not being able to resist such an invitation? Just one thing though, do you think the seizing of Crimea and eastern territories by 'little green men' might have influenced Ukraine's decision to leave a treaty promising the 'inviolability of borders'? Just a thought.
2. Brilliant analysis about the purpose of NATO. I'd never considered that NATO could have been a conspiracy by the defence industry given the massive disarmament across Europe since the end of the Cold War. Clearly I've overlooked something. The Russian defence industry seems to have done well, though, so there may be something in it.
3. '...a lot of beneficial trade between the EU & Russia. That had allowed the EU economy to overtake the US, which simply could not be allowed.' Again, brilliant analysis. I'd never realised that US foreign policy towards the EU was driven by jealousy of the EU's obvious massive economic success, all driven by it's hitherto excellent relations with a peaceful Russia that could be mistaken for a nation-size Dalai Lama. Amazing stuff.
Your deep concern for the welfare of the Ukrainian people is touching. All they have to do is surrender and thereby undo the damage caused by the aggressive EU jealousy-driven policies of the US. After all, the Ukrainians could then look forward to being annexed by Russia and treated with the same care and tenderness shown to the people of Bucha.
Sir, I can only think of one word to sum up your analytical skills - unbelievable!
1. For sure, Ukraine leaving the friendship treaty might as well have been a invitation saying 'invade our countries, bomb our hospitals, and murder our civilians on drone hunts'. What other possible reading could you have?
This is all fine. See for example-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gejed7wgeo
The director of Gaza's Indonesian Hospital has been killed in an Israeli air strike on his home in Gaza City along with several family members, a relative has confirmed.
Or you could ask the people of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, or even Yugoslavia. No, wait, Yugoslavia doesn't exist any more because the NATO 'defensive' alliance will happily bomb cities and redraw maps when it suits us. Strange the way our precision bombing resulted in far more civilian casualties than Ukraine has, even including the 14,000 or so Ukraine killed during their civil war phase between 2014 and 2022. More on those here-
https://www.osce.org/resources/documents/donbass
which includes reports of Ukraine yeeting PFM-1 'petal' mines into central Donestk, which is curious because Ukraine is a signatory to Ottawa and was supposed to have destroyed their stocks of anti-personnnel mines.
Just one thing though, do you think the seizing of Crimea and eastern territories by 'little green men' might have influenced Ukraine's decision to leave a treaty promising the 'inviolability of borders'? Just a thought.
Perhaps try thinking harder? Thing is, Crimea & Sevastopol had special status on account of their history and being home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. But the little green men from NATO wanted to evict Russia and claim those bases for our own. One of those preludes to the civil war and then SMO that nafobots gloss over, like this-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kharkiv_Pact
Where Ukraine & Russia negotiated basing rights in Crimea in exchange for discounted gas. Which in typical Ukrainian fashion Ukraine discounted to zero because their oligarchs often got to be oligarchs by stealing gas. Obviously that deal upset our little green men, so they got busy baking cookies, and the coup happened. One of the first decisions was to strip autonomy from Crimea, and start Kiev's de-Russification, which obviously wasn't very popular. But then neither is this, especially when interpretation gets a bit lopsided-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#The_UN_Charter_and_resolutions
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. "
Which Kiev ignored, so Crimeans overwhelmingly voted to secceed and join the Russian Federation. Since then, Kiev has been busily violating the UN Charter by denying social, cultural and religious freedoms. Apparently this makes Ukraine a perfect candiate for EU accession though.
Clearly I've overlooked something. The Russian defence industry seems to have done well, though, so there may be something in it.
Yep. Several somethings. Like comparitive defence spending between NATO and Russia and how come Russia seems able to produce so much more for so much less? And then who NATO was supposed to fight? We spent a few trillion fighting the 'War on Terror' trying to find OBL in Afghanistan, only to discover OBL was hiding in Pakistan, and giving up, going home and handing Afghanistan over to the Taliban. Or moving the 'War on Terror' over to Syria where an ISIS/HTS terrorist traded their $10m bounty for a suit and is now being offered billions.
Again, brilliant analysis. I'd never realised that US foreign policy towards the EU was driven by jealousy of the EU's obvious massive economic success,
Well, Nuland did promise to fsck the EU, and she did. Prior to the SMO, US trade with Russia was around $10bn, so it didn't really have much to lose. After the 18 rounds of 'shock and awe' sanctions that were supposed to leave Russia's economy in 'tatters', is leaving ours in tatters instead. And then to add insult to injury, dear'ol Donald started his tariff & trade wars against the EU. Apparently Europe needs to buy more American cars. I guess he and his trade advisors haven't noticed the number of Ford & GM vehicles on European roads, or even Teslas. But as they're manufactured in the EU rather than imported, they don't count.
Which isn't unsuprising, after all, heads of state are supposed to act in their nations interests first. Sadly for Europe, our 'leaders' don't.
How will that really work? The Russian captain of the Solong that "accidentally" rammed a US reserve fleet tanker at speed is on trial for gross negligence manslaughter and the Solong looks well beyond economic repair to my eyes. If he gets sent down, then all that happens is Russia arrests some hapless Brit who's been stupid enough to visit Russia, convicts the sap on trumped up espionage charges and the UK has to do a prisoner swap. Same as the Iranians, and all other shit-hole regimes the world over.
While it's fair that in these times everybody assumes the worst, but most of these accidents are actually...just accidents. Nobody handled the Baltimore bridge collpase as an act of terrorism - those who work in the shipping industry know that ship crews are often just tired and make mistakes. This kind of human negligence would be an unacceptable risk in aviation for example, but part of everyday operations in the maritime industry.
Plus I don't think a lot of mariners would be really tempted by an offer from a shady Russian guy. If they want to make dirty money there are always drug trafficking opportunities.
So, we will have bigger punishments for cutting undersea cables. I bet Putin is quaking in his boots now. And of course we would never do such a thing.
What about blowing up gas pipelines and dumping massive amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, what will be the punishment for that and who will enforce? No it wasn't the Russians, they had a valve to turn.
If subsea pipelines as well as cables are relevant then Europe has been at war with the USA, and probably the UK too, for almost three years. Biden very specifically said the European-owned gas pipeline would not be allowed to open, and it was never in the interests of Europeans, least of all Russia, to destroy it.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
