I used to work on distributed systems, and network partitions were a frequent enough occurrence that they weren’t considered an extraordinary event. By that, I mean that we wouldn’t page during network partitions because it was still considered normal system operation. Our design was designed from the ground up to consider network partitions as a frequent and normal operational state.
What we did do is watch SLAs. If the network partition continued for too long, then our data quality would degrade over time. So we would page based on data quality.
I don’t know the answer to the actual question you asked, I would be curious to know, too.
To summarize the article: On average, 199 cable faults per year from 2010-2023. Two thirds of these faults are caused by external forces like fishing vessels. Most cable faults are not made public. The preliminary data from 2024 suggests slightly more publicly disclosed faults, but nothing extraordinary. It is hard to detect the physical cause of cable damage. One likely cause is inexperienced crews on poorly maintained ships.
Personally, I do not believe all the cable faults in the Baltic sea are pure accidents. Russia (and China) have found the "perfect" way to test how we react and play their games. This testing is nothing new and it has happened before in many forms. It is likely that we have not even noticed some of the testing or they are not made public.
[1] https://blog.telegeography.com/is-it-sabotage-unraveling-the...
"Det är bolaget Cinia som äger kabeln som går mellan Tyskland och Finland. Bolaget bekräftar för SVT Nyheter lättare skador, som inte påverkar kommunikationsförbindelserna."
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/utrikes/uppgifter-om-nytt-kabelbr...
If ship anchors are able to reach the sea bottom then it can't be too deep. Drilling fasteners in the sea bottom at shallow depths could be feasible depending on the makeup of the sea bed. No idea about the cost to install vs repair though.
How crazy is it to cover the cables with passive sonar and detect damage threats? How much crazier is it to create a sufficient number of undersea drones that can prevent damage before it happens? Maybe manoeuvre a protective barrier over the predicted impact area if there's a dragging anchor or fishing net? Pick a fight with enemy drones?
I'm increasingly impressed and terrified with air/ground drone capabilities displayed in Ukraine. The sea floor seems like the next logical step. But maybe it's more efficient to detect damage quickly and make repairs easy.
Swedish: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ljusstrale-genom-kablar-k...
Also, you know, whales not having sharp teeth and the ability to chew small breaks into cables that look remarkably like intentionally dragging boat anchors across them and all that.
Ukrainian surface naval drones have proven to have superiority over naval capital ships in littoral and medium seas (which is what the Mediterranean and the Baltic Seas are like compared to the Black Sea).
Deep water naval drone superiority is probably very close, but ability to hunt, track, and kill ballistic submarines will be critical to undermining US naval dominance. Both China and EU will be heavily invested in this.
If all military naval assets can be neutered by cheap drones, then a sort of mutually assured destruction of sea trade can be somewhat enforced. Maybe.
The important part here is I don't thing anyone can get enough value to be worth it. Often ships have negative value in a scrap yard - they are so full of toxic/hazardous things that scrap yards charge more than they are worth to cut them up.
Escalation just when US leadership is pulling away.
Stroke of strategic brilliance right there.
/s
EU should probably walk backward, slowly, saying “good dog”, while feeling around behind them for a stick. Ie - Take this opportunity to, quietly but significantly, scale up EU military capabilities. That would come in handy for dealing with both Russia, and the US, by the way. It’s crazy times so you don’t know what the future will hold.
That Berlin Airport was not that expensive. Have fun slamming into a wall of robots..
They have IRIS-T and SAMP/T, the latter being somewhat comparable to the Patriot. Beside American made aircrafts there are also locally produced ones. I would be more worried by the lack of a proper equivalent of AWACS.
In general though issue is not quality (at least compared to Russia) but quantity. Also if I was an European country I would be worried about the usability of any advanced weapon bought from our American friends: I wouldn't be surprised if, in case of confrontation between Europe and Russia, the guy in the Oval Office decided to block sales of spare parts in order to force war mongering Europeans to come to an agreement with peace-seeking Putin, or if his plutocratic friend decided to completely axe the project because "it sucks and drones are better"
Many European countries chose Patriot for diplomatic reasons. The US used to favour those who bought their weapons. Not any more it seems, so I guess that mistake will not be repeated in the near term.
The EU can't supply those in large numbers either though.
Russians problems are about bad leadership. They have a lot of badly trained troops (their well trained troops do very well, but they are a small minority and running out). They have logistics issues. They have problems with leaders using well trained troops for things they are not trained for. They have problems with nobody willing to tell the full truth to leaders and so leaders can't make the right plans. They have problems with leaders there because they are political good not because they are great military commanders.
Do not fool yourself though. Russia is a very well armed country. They have problems, but lack of arms is not their issue in Ukraine.
> They have problems with nobody willing to tell the full truth to leaders and so leaders can't make the right plans
That for sure. This started at least when no one told putting he is terminally insane back in 2021.
Russia isn't going to win, it's going to slow burn to failure (again, military hardware exhaustion, parts of their economy on the brink of failure, working age demographics crisis leading to ~21% central bank rates to attempt to quell inflation to no avail), but Europe improving its military capabilities would derisk against potential tail risk aggression and losses as Russia stumbles to a failure mode. Putin will die eventually, although it is unknown who and what replaces him; Europe must manage that risk.
Europe is learning the hard way that you can't use economics to tame an aggressor (Nord Stream) nor can you rely on benevolent allies to be benevolent in perpetuity. This is objectively good, as it will force Europe to re-industrialize to an extent, and I argue manufacturing base and supply chains are of national security interest (gestures broadly at everything). Not your manufacturing base and supply chain? Not your freedom.
But that would require significant political change in all major players in EU, Leyden so far is pushing for it like there is no tomorrow and otherwise all is well and good. She seems untouchable. Germany prefers buying electricity from foreign coal rather than keep nuclear running for few more years. Also Germans will probably let half of Europe burn before they would make Wehrmacht the force to again reckon with.
Each country had 3 years to massively ramp up budgets and build factories, start recruiting. Poland and baltics did the moves since they had plenty of russian atrocities happen not so long ago, but the rest? We dont deal with strictly rational society here.
The real question is: When are we going to require ever single Russian ship parsing through the Baltic Sea to be escorted by JEF naval vessels.
So countries would have to choose between keeping access to Microsoft (Azure, Office 365, Windows updates), Amazon (AWS, Amazon itself, Prime Video), Google (Google Cloud, all Google services), Meta (WhatsApp/Facebook/Instagram), Github, Cloudflare, Slack, Steam, Netflix, Mastercard, Visa, ... - or to the services in countries that chose differently.
I don't think that is a choice that any even remotely Western-aligned country could even consider a choice. It's likely that there would be some form of backlash (countries disliking this loss of sovereignty and measures to discourage reliance on US-based cloud providers in the long term), but in the short term, this would not be cutting the US off from parts of the Internet that it cares about.
And with most countries having chosen (well, "chosen") the US-aligned Internet, India and China would have to choose between begrudgingly playing along, or seriously hurting their economies due to the additional friction of communicating with their export markets.
I have no doubt that the US could pull this off. Not necessarily repeatedly and without consequences, of course, but right now, if they wanted to, I don't think the rest of the world would have a choice to not go along with it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/russia-is-trying-...
The European countries needs to stop being so soft.
You can choose what that point is, but it's weird not to expect enemies to continually test where your line is, and walk you right up to it.
I'm not sure what you expect to see here?
Let's assume for a second armed conflict is the "natural" next step.
Either you are willing to get into an armed conflict over it or not. If you aren't, and they are willing to accept everything other than armed conflict (sanctions, etc), why should they care at all what you think or do? They already know you won't escalate past a certain point. As long as they are willing to accept how far you are willing to escalate, ....
In the end, people monitor actions, not words.
You edged them during your whole cold war thing & now you got a headache and want the neighbours to take care of it.
But, at some point there is a limit. If the EU does choose, as you call it, kinetic war, Russia will be toast. They cannot win a conventional war against a far larger economy. Just like Ukraine cannot win the war against Russia.
Also increase Sanctions even more. We still have Banks like the Austrian Raiffeisenkasse that operate in Russia.
Not condemning the aggressor over and over make us look soft, indeed.
Or is it "somebody else" who has to show a backbone and take action?
Europe is a case of being crippled by assistance, like a man who uses an electric wheelchair until his leg muscles atrophy. They've leaned on US security guarantees so long that most countries have no functioning deterrent (look up the German air force sometime if you want to be sad).
Good times create weak people.
Weak people create hard times.
The question is if it can overcome the next phase without another Adolf or war.
Hard times create strong people.<benevolent> not really. we bougth a ton of USA weapons and also our soldiers died in USA started wars, it was an alliance and now USA just betrayed us , the blood and money we sacrificed was for nothing, I hope the cheap eggs from Trump satisfies MAGA idiots for this international betrayal .
> I have several issues with this quote from the manosphere. The manosphere was infested with both Russians and Ukrainians who were busy "preparing for the big war" with lifting etc. since at least 2014. Now they are in a trench warfare and barely make any progress in either direction. Could it be that talking up war for so many years leads to a self-fulfilling prophesy? The people doing most of the talking of course are "public intellectuals" who tell others to go lift and prepare for war. TV commentators on the Russian side, Lindsey Graham and a couple of RedPill folks on the Ukrainian side. Now the weak EU leaders who barely have 20-30% public support have a big mouth and tell others to go to the gym (metaphorically).
In a thread full of hatred and calls for more senseless violence and calls to sink all ships etc.
I don't know if wealth makes us weaker, but it apparently don't make us less prone to be manipulated by emotions.
This whole thread is a joke right? The US is the one who just elevated the modern day Hitler to world leader and is now cheering him on as he collaborates with the Russia to commit genocide in Ukraine, and the Israelis to commit genocide in Gaza.
Why do so many people resort to that argument, as if they can predict what would happen if Europe went to war.
Christ can people stop with this stupid quote? And could we stop using fiction as argument about real world too?
That does not mean such vessels should be let off. They should be held at anchor until the responsible person(s) have been identified and the vessel's owners should be held financially responsible for the damages. Once a few owners have been made to pay up they'll make sure it becomes impossible for an individual to go out to the bow at night to drop an anchor without anyone noticing.
Identifying your actual enemy is obviously step 1, and getting this right might be harder than you'd think.
Look at Nord Stream 2...
What do you suggest?
If else, Russians see any restraint by the enemy as a sign of weakness and an excuse to escalate even more.
“You probe with bayonets: if you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw” ― Vladimir Ilich Lenin
What’s the answer?
But of course you can't /know/ the outcome beforehand, which is what makes it a high-stakes game. The only thing you know is that if you keep doing nothing they'll have no reason to stop.
The key is that the measure must cost the aggressor more than they gain, and of course be reasonably proportional.
Plus, even if we stick to your irrelevant requirement, response is better. It is less bad to have no subsea cabling for everyone vs making no response and ending up with only the aggressors having subsea cabling.
It may give them pretext
But when they want to escalate, any convenient pretext they can fabricate will be spewed out
Appeasement ONLY encourages aggressors. They can ignore any statements and rhetoric and correctly conclude: "I did X, no real consequences, therefore I can do more X".
The ONLY language they understand is force or consequences with real cost to them. Vladimir Lenin said it very clearly:
>>"We probe with bayonets. Where we find steel we withdraw, where we find mush we press on."
When delaying reciprocal action, the cost for the next round ALWAYS increases.
Delaying response is a fools' game.
Democracies always play that fools' game because for any one politician, it is easier to kick the can down the road with bad reasoning like you posted.
But when the situation finally becomes unavoidable, it is a deep serious problem. Here we are.
It's really just the Imperialist Autocrats' standard playbook, and it is little different from the schoolyard bully — "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is up for grabs".
They all just keep aggressing until they get hurt, then they find someone else to harass and steal from.
Even more non-credible: Use the nuclear-armed version with a small nuclear warhead
It became newsworthy and a part of the zeitgeist so every incident is heavily reported on now, making it seem like there has been a big uptick when this stuff has always been happening.
As to those countries being soft, this is happening in international waters and they have been seizing ships. Not sure how much more they are supposed to do. Anti-ship missiles?
The "language that Russia understand" option: "If you do this one more time, ships going to/from your harbors won't be allowed through the straits anymore, IDGAF what international law says". Should it happen again, inform any such ship that they're not allowed passage and will be fired upon if they try. If they try, follow through.
But just a few weeks ago us Swedes released a ship that was pretty obviously acting with malicious intent because of limited research or due to incompetence.
I'd like that to stop.
If there is never any consequence for action we are left with only anarchy.
Won't happen, at least not in any meaningful form.
Baltics or Poland are existentially threatened by Russia, Spain or even Germany are not, even if Russia can do a limited damage to them. What is supposed to create "unity" in that regard? What would force Spain to contribute as much as, let's say, Finland? We can see even now, with all these US threats, not every NATO country was willing to increase its spending on military. And even more importantly, who is going to command such EU army? Commission?
I have never heard any serious Russia politician claim that the Baltics or Poland should be invaded.
Ukraine and Georgia are fundamentally different (for them), which is why they always have been red lines as pointed out in the Burns diplomatic telegram.
Poland and Russia have opposing interests. Period. Russia wants to be a part of Europe, Poland doesn't want Russia to be a part of Europe. Poland wants to be sovereign country that keeps growing economically, Russia doesn't want that. Russia doesn't need to invade Poland, it is enough to "reshape the European Security Architecture", reduce Polish chances to develop and growth etc.
Doubtful.
Of course, Ukraine was willing to undergo the required reforms. Russia and Putin is far too proud and suspicious of the West to do that.
Europe is not limited to EU or shared Western values of human rights and democracy.
Putin did on one of St.Petersburg conferences, but you are right there are no serious politicians in Russia.
Nukes are but a one thing, useful only in specific circumstances, but not sufficient. It is unrealistic to expect France using nukes if Russia attacks Lithuania, for example. Stakes are not justifying such escalation.
European countries lack conventional means: UAV, artillery, missiles. And soldiers.
Well, seems like some in Europe have doubts about it.
We could be a lot stronger with the same amount of money invested through economies-of-scale.
We can either take the chance to become a superpower or we will be taken over by aggressive countries like Russia.
... because that worked out so well for Europe when Poland was invaded in 1939 and everyone looked the other way?
After the war, top German generals like Franz Halder, the Chief of the Army General Staff, revealed that their actual strength had been much smaller than the British and the French had feared. Anglo-French forces could have outnumbered them 1:5. The generals speculated that a well-coordinated allied attack from France could have defeated Germany in just a few weeks.
Imagine Europe if Hitler had been hanged in 1939!
There is no need for anything more, nor are the institutions really designed for a single president / general to direct everyone in a conflict. Putting in place all the capabilities to work together in a conflict should be done however.
What? I'm pretty sure he said that.
Yeah, here it is: 'Army of Europe' needed to challenge Russia, says Zelensky
The US is no longer a reliable ally to the EU or NATO. The EU must be able to protect itself.
They can cause an enormous amount of lifes to be lost, but winning against nevermind steamrolling EU is farfetched.
And by rickety, I mean political cohesion.
Frankly, the EU is guilty of neglect in this respect for years. Poland, for example, had been urging things like more energy solidarity since it joined the EU, something Germany consistently shot down or waved away. Mustard after the meal in some ways.
A stronger response will require more defense investment to counter hybrid warfare.