Russian Presence Near Undersea Cables Concerns US (nytimes.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The NY Times reports that the presence of Russian ships near important, undersea internet cables is raising concern with U.S. military and intelligence officials. From the article: "The issue goes beyond old Cold War worries that the Russians would tap into the cables — a task American intelligence agencies also mastered decades ago. The alarm today is deeper: The ultimate Russian hack on the United States could involve severing the fiber-optic cables at some of their hardest-to-access locations to halt the instant communications on which the West's governments, economies and citizens have grown dependent.
...
Just last month, the Russian spy ship Yantar, equipped with two self-propelled deep-sea submersible craft, cruised slowly off the East Coast of the United States on its way to Cuba — where one major cable lands near the American naval station at Guantánamo Bay. It was monitored constantly by American spy satellites, ships and planes. Navy officials said the Yantar and the submersible vehicles it can drop off its decks have the capability to cut cables miles down in the sea. What worries Pentagon planners most is that the Russians appear to be looking for vulnerabilities at much greater depths, where the cables are hard to monitor and breaks are hard to find and repair.

Comments

Military funding to thwart this threat?

[rmdingler]

Sounds like a money grab. It seems unlikely the Russians would risk peacetime exposure of such an act of sabotage, only to risk the full measure of the American retaliation process, unless the two nations were at war.

Scouting mission? Sure. Possibly.

But Putin's grandstanding is likely more about restoring key pieces of the old Soviet Empire and regaining a foothold in the Middle East, not in confronting the Americans head on.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[knightghost]

In case you missed it, the Russians aren't in "peace time" mode. Ukraine, Syria, etc.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a money grab. It seems unlikely the Russians would risk peacetime exposure of such an act of sabotage, only to risk the full measure of the American retaliation process, unless the two nations were at war.

Scouting mission? Sure. Possibly.

But Putin's grandstanding is likely more about restoring key pieces of the old Soviet Empire and regaining a foothold in the Middle East, not in confronting the Americans head on.

I would have agreed with you maybe ten years ago, but ever since Russia started flying bombers equipped with nukes near my home here in Alaska ( http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/politics/russian-bombers-u-s-intercept-july-4/ ) I have to disagree. Cold War 2.0 is starting folks--the Putin regime is not joking around.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Around $300 million per cable. The military spends 60 times that on air conditioning.

Laying down 200 cables would cost 10% of the military budget.
Not feasible to do overnight, but ten every year for 20 years might be doable.
I suspect that you can get the price down a bit if you lay down that many for a long time.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[maeka]

I'm on-board with Military funding to thwart this - let's fund the military and have them lay down 200 redundant cables. It's absurd how few of these we have.

2 cables or 200, it doesn't matter when talking about exposure to intentional sabotage by a state actor. Destruction of such assets is inherently asymmetric.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Rei]

$300m per cable which Russia could probably cut for a few hundred thousand USD per cable of amortized ship construction/operating costs - yeah, what a winning bet you've got there.

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Rei]

He's not a troll, he's a Likho. Putin would never resort to using inferior western mythological creatures!

Re: Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

F-35?

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[wwphx]

What I find amusing is that we tapped their military cables ages ago and had a submarine dedicated to it. And now they may be looking to do the same thing? Boo hoo. Lots of factions in the government are happiest when they have a clearly-defined enemy, well, they've got it.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ColdWetDog]

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

For faster Netflix streaming? You're damned well right I do. Where are your priorities?

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ShanghaiBill]

Seriously, you want to spend 10% of the US military's entire budget on one line item?

No, no, you are missing the point. We need to increase the military budget by 10%. The whole point of scaremongering and manufactured crises, is to get more money, not just shift around what you already have.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[ShanghaiBill]

The Americans haven't been in peace time mode since 1945 unless I missed history classes.

You missed some classes. The US was at war, continuously, throughout the 1920s and 1930s, with American soldiers fighting to prop up dictators in Nicaragua, Haiti, Honduras, etc.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[khallow]

I think the "crazy" part is more due to lazy journalists who can't be bothered to - or might not even be capable of - understanding the actions of someone they're hostile to. The "write off as crazy" approach is cheap and low effort.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[bobbied]

The Americans haven't been in peace time mode since 1945 unless I missed history classes.

Yea, we've been bombing the ..... Out of the rest of the world just because we are vindictive sons of ......

Seriously, who teaches this garbage? Where we have been in numerous armed conflicts around the world since the end of WW2, hasn't anybody been paying attention to what other countries have done or are now attempting to do? Does anybody care that there have been a number of successful outcomes from these conflicts? Or does anybody care the motivations behind why the USA got involved? No, we have to further the notion that the lone superpower of the world is somehow corruptly using it's military power to "take what it wants" or any other tripe the "have not's" dream up, then re-enforce this idea by spouting half truths and bringing up isolated unfortunate events as proof.

My favorite is that we went into Iraq for "oil". Well we went into Iraq TWICE in my living memory and didn't get one drop of oil or one square foot of ground from it. The FIRST time was to return the oil fields of Kuwait to Kuwait and make sure Iraq wouldn't quickly return. The USA didn't get any oil from the deal, but returned ALL the oil and the territory captured to it's original owners. The SECOND trip into Iraq was for different reasons, but again, even though we had thoroughly and completely conquered ALL of Iraq including it's oil fields, the USA returned them to Iraq along with all the territory taken.

So tell me again how the Americans are all about war? Because if we where, the earth would be paying taxes through the IRS.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[smooth wombat]

Ukraine had no legal process to remove an elected president involuntarily prior to the end of his term.

Which does not apply in this case since Yanukovych ordered his Berkut security forces to open fire and murder dozens of protestors.

At that point the Ukrainian parliament abandoned him because of his criminal acts. His next step was to flee into the arms of Putin.

Since a), Yanukovych committed a crime (the order to murder civilians who were protesting his actions) and b) he fled the country, there was no need to remove him from office. He willingly removed himself by his actions.

As to the supposed undue American influence, I guess letting people know living under freedom is better than living under the boot heel of Russian oppression might, in some twisted fashion, be considered undue influence.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[khallow]

They can't start cutting hundreds of cables without someone noticing.

If you cut internet to Europe, especially while launching a nuclear first strike, someone will notice. It doesn't matter if you instantaneously cut 2 lines or 200. The blossoming fireballs over major cities and/or strategic military targets will give it away.

Or do you mean that the cable cuts will keep the US military from reading Putin's tweets? Sow confusion among Slashdot's international superpowered community?

Wait... so it won't have even the slightest effect in an actual war where no one actually relies on those cables for military communication? How about that.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[AmiMoJo]

Thing is, the US never stopped placing military assets near Russia. In the 90s Russian stopped its air patrols and cut back sea patrols due to lack of money, but the US didn't. The US has a lot of military bases near Russia too, which is has kept open.

Russian was forced to back down, but the US didn't take the opportunity to make a similar reduction. Too lucrative for the military industrial complex I guess. So don't complain when Russia starts up patrols again. The US has an opportunity to de-escalate, was invited to by Russian diplomats, and didn't. So Russian resumed its previous stance, which is remarkably restrained considering the invasions and military activity that the US has been engaged in since 2000, all on Russia's doorstep.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[aaaaaaargh!]

No, Putin is probably really kind of 'crazy', at least that's what the public evidence indicates. He's a psychopath who almost entirely lacks empathy and only thinks in the strategic terms of an aged intelligence operative, and that's a problem, not that he also acts in the interest of his country like any other leader does. He's also kind of a loner.

Crazy and rational are not mutually exclusive terms, they easily go hand in hand.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[neoritter]

God, the same tired old comments from Russian trolls and those that have bought into their sophistry.

The US took almost no part in the Ukrainian uprisings. And your Mexico analogy clichéd and tired as it is, is just wrong. Ukraine was pivoting to the EU. You know that economic alliance almost literally right next door to Ukraine.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[rockout]

We absolutely were making similar reductions. There's a Wikipedia pagethat lists 214 former US installations in Germany alone - the vast majority of which were closed since 1991. We completely closed our base in Iceland, which at one point had thousands of Air Force and Navy personnel stationed there. And that's just scratching the surface with 5 seconds of googling. Surely you can do better than making a point based on a completely false premise.

Re:Military funding to thwart this threat?

[Xest]

"Thing is, the US never stopped placing military assets near Russia. In the 90s Russian stopped its air patrols and cut back sea patrols due to lack of money, but the US didn't. The US has a lot of military bases near Russia too, which is has kept open."

It's also closed a lot too. The US trajectory was pretty clearly in the direction Russia wanted. You may have forgotten that the US wanted to build a missile shield in Europe because of the fear that Iran was building nuclear ICBMs and Russia was refusing to stop Iran doing this by joining necessary sanctions. America ultimately cancelled the project to appease Russian fears it was targetted at them, and only many years later did Russia agree separately to help deal with the Iran nuclear threat.

The amount of American deployments in Europe was shrinking at a rapid pace right into the run up of the Ukraine crisis. In fact, I believe at the point the Ukraine crisis started there were no American MBTs left in Europe - this despite the fact that Russia had invaded a NATO ally and EU candidate, Georgia.

There was good reason for the US de-escalation towards Russia too - the US simply stopped caring about Russia being bothered instead by China and the Middle East. Even the US with it's military might has finite resources and it couldn't justify stationing equipment on Russia's border when it was bothered about increasing Chinese, Iranian (and before it's collapse, Syrian) adventurism. US forces had all been re-deployed to the Indian Ocean and Pacific to counter those concerns.

So what you say is almost entirely another Russian propaganda myth. See here for the type and scale of American draw down post-cold war we're talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There was actually a serious push to bring Russia into NATO to seal the deal in terms of ending the cold war in the 90s, this ended when Putin rose to power and made it clear he wants to resurrect the USSR as an independent power. The last remnants of this plan were finally obliterated when Putin invaded Ukraine and the NATO-Russia cooperation agreements (that saw Russian military leaders staffed at NATO HQ) we're finally torn up.

So no, you can't blame military build up against Russia I'm afraid either. Russia is the only country that's actually been aggressive on that front with invasions of Georgia and Ukraine and Russia's unilateral decision to ignore a number of nuclear disarmament treaties (including that which promised Ukraine security in return for giving up it's nuclear arsenal). America had all but pulled out of Europe when Putin invaded Ukraine.

Really, the more the US has pulled out, the more Russia has pushed forward. Any US military expansionism in Europe is wholly the result of increased Russian aggression rather than vice versa.

There's literally no evidence that Russian aggression has increased in response to increase US military expansionism in Europe, only the complete contrary. The best part is all this information is public, so go see for yourself how much the US has drawn down it's forces in Europe since the end of the cold war.

Re:Now let's talk about

[MagickalMyst]

"because god bless America and uhm democracy and capitalism. "

I thought America was a Republic, not a Democracy...

"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone has such capability. No advanced equipment needed - just old-fashioned depth charges. If you master "underwater explosives", then you cruise along the cable and drop cheap bombs till you hit hit.

Which is what will happen in a war with a low-tech opponent. Russian equipment may be able to cut a cable on the very first try - that doesn't make them more dangerous than a fishing boat retrofitted with with a dept charge launcher. This sort of warfare is too easy.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Holi]

The likely hood of actually hitting a cable a mile underwater with a depth charge is pretty minimal. The various currents on the way down are going to send your explosive on a random path, and it's not going to land directly underneath you.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even close. The function of an underwater explosive is to destroy structures susceptible to shock waves - specifically, a depth charge is designed to affect any structure with a void that can be overcome with a spike in static pressure, like a manned submarine, which has an air void for the sailors to live in. Depth charges are designed to propagate a pressure wave over a relatively large 3D space using the gas generated in the explosion as a void in the water to instigate a cyclical event that will affect the target by the rising bubble of rapidly expanding and contracting gas, and since only a relatively small pressure differential is necessary to overcome the skin of a submarine, that charge is dispersed omnidirectionally for maximum range, since the position of a submarine is not always precisely known and dropping a depth charge directly on the sub is very difficult with an unguided system such as a depth charge. An underground cable is dense, lacks a meaningful pressure void, is VERY small at 3-5 inches diameter, and runs across (and sometimes slightly under due to tidal forces) the seabed floor where any explosive would have a VERY small surface area to attack. As such, any depth charge used against an undersea cable would need to be placed with extreme precision directly over the cable at a VERY close range (we're talking meters, if not centimeters), and have a shaped charge to funnel the blast energy directly into the cable structure to cut the cable, not just bounce a pressure wave off of it. So, basically, it would need to have exactly none of the characteristics of the "cheap bombs" you speak of, other than perhaps the "underwater" part. It would be much easier just to destroy the aboveground facility where the undersea cable makes landfall.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[DarkOx]

Sure but the parents point is that just means you need to drop more bombs. Also a simple sonar from 60 years ago could give you a pretty good idea of where the charge you just dropped struck. Commercially available equipment is far more capable and perfectly affordable for even a small nation. Once you know the net effect of those currents after dropping a handful of charges is that they tend to land 2 miles north and east you position yourself two miles south and west of the cable and start dropping charges again until you strike home.

I know some allied air raids in WWII had accuracy rates of only 30% or so and that was considered perfectly adequate. You just put more bombers in the air.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[GNious]

Deploying remote-controllable explosives, evil-genius style? :D

Re: "capability to cut cables"

[Anonymous Coward]

Try it again with a marble.

Re:"capability to cut cables"

[bobbied]

Anyone has such capability. No advanced equipment needed - just old-fashioned depth charges. If you master "underwater explosives", then you cruise along the cable and drop cheap bombs till you hit hit.

Which is what will happen in a war with a low-tech opponent. Russian equipment may be able to cut a cable on the very first try - that doesn't make them more dangerous than a fishing boat retrofitted with with a dept charge launcher. This sort of warfare is too easy.

Dang dude... Depth charges are way too expensive and would take too long for this... All you need is to drag along the bottom across the cable using something like an anchor or grappling hook. Once you snag the cable, just shear it into two by either cutting it or pulling on it really hard across a sharp hardened steal blade. Low tech and simple wins EVERY time.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

just more fear-mongering and propaganda from a crazy government of a paranoid country. The U.S has been killing, murdering, over-throwing, meddling, and cyber-attacking countries, governments and corporations all over the planet, all while it constantly cries about how helpless it is and how the evil russians and chinese are attacking. Sickening.

Re:Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet I'd put my very fate in the hands of America over Russia and China, any day. As much as the American government gets up to all sorts of terrible fuckery, they are angels in comparison. No amount of fuckery you can list will change that truth, and you are blind or brainwashed if you try.

Signed, a non-American.

Re:Bullshit

[mrvan]

The police are keeping you in a protected witness facility because the mob is out to get you, and you start thinking the police might not be as bad as the mobsters --- that's not really Stockhold symdrome territory yet :)

In other words, US supremacy is the worst thing that can happen to the world, apart of course from nazi german supremacy, Chinese supremacy, Putin or Stalin russian supremacy, and good lord just imagine EU supremacy. Death by a thousand red tapes, that one...

Re: Bullshit

[bobbied]

I'll advise you to recognize as well that the USA, while far from perfect, has so far resisted domination by acquiring territory and resources by force which it is FULLY capable and has IN FACT unilaterally acted with restraint since before World War 1, returning territory won though armed conflict to it's original owners, including those owners who initiated the armed conflict with the USA, and generally attempting to advance the causes of freedom and democracy for all the peoples of the world though the use of its military forces. Yes, we've faltered in our resolve on occasion, killed innocent non-combatants from time to time, and even made some mistakes in our calculations and policies which have accrued to everyone's determent, but we have NOT done so with evil intent. Further, had the USA not engaged in any number of conflicts, the world would be a much different and more dangerous place for many.

Data theft

[Anonymous Coward]

While I don't trust Russia either, I am far more worried about the US presence near undersea cables, as there is actual documented evidence that suggests they sabotage undersea cables to wiretap overseas communications.

We forbid anyone else do what we do

[Anonymous Coward]

Only America is allowed to spy on the world.

Re:We forbid anyone else do what we do

[hey!]

Please tell me how the FUCK that would work out to Russia's benefit.

Well, according to that mindset warfare in general doesn't make sense. Nonetheless people still do it, to their own detriment or even destruction.

The German Writer Berthold Brecht wrote in the aftermath of WW2:

Great Carthage fought three wars;
After the first it was still powerful;
After the second it was still inhabitable;
After the third nobody could find it at all.

How dare they do what we're doing?!?!?

[NotDrWho]

Stop it!

Re:Now let's talk about

[hlavac]

No Democracy, America is Oligarchy now according to experts

Re:"Grown Dependent"??

[Muad'Dave]

What I see as the big threat is that Putin makes the first move, and the West does not react.

You mean like The Crimea? We sat by and watched Russia annex a sovereign nation's territory and didn't even whimper. We even promised to defend them and failed to do that.

So ... boo hoo then?

[gstoddart]

Is this a case of the US getting all whiny when someone else does the exact same shit they do?

The issue goes beyond old Cold War worries that the Russians would tap into the cables -- a task American intelligence agencies also mastered decades ago

If so, you'll forgive the rest of the world for not giving a fuck.

Boo hoo, teh Russians are going to spy on us the same way we spy on everyone else. Waahh, how unfair.

Honestly, this clueless double standard is mind boggling. What the hell did you expect? Other countries to not do this stuff?

Re:So ... boo hoo then?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least most of what the US intercepts this way, it would probably keep to itself. Anything Russia gets that's economically valuable (ID theft, etc.), I'd expect to end up in the hands of organized crime

Of Course!

The US has no organized crime. And it has never had a corrupt politician or a stolen election, or a made up war for profit...

The imbecility in display here is baffling.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[Rei]

Huh? Russia has engaged in plenty of secret wars and occupations in the past "since decades", including some really brutal slaughters (see Grozny for an example, that's how Russia puts down a rebellion). And the US and Israel "sponsored and trained ISIS" (Daesh)? The US and Israel are actively fighting Daesh (the former being among the most active entities in the world fighting them). The US has never supported Daesh - they're even giving pretty much a free pass to al-Qaeda right now (al-Nusra in Syria) because even al-Qaeda is fighting Daesh (when even al-Qaeda thinks you're too radical, you're seriously messed up). Even before the US started actively fighting Daesh they were helping the Iraqi military in their efforts to fight them.

An old German saying

[Opportunist]

It loses a bit in translation, but essentially it says "The knave thinks others are as he is, and expects likewise from them".

Re:An old German saying

[brewthatistrue]

no, it's more like liars who think everyone lies (or "is out for number one"), so they trust no one.

compared to truth tellers who think some people lie and some people don't, so they trust some.

your own mindset colors your view of the world.

Occam's razor principle

[Max_W]

Occam's razor principle: Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It is a scientific ship. It is doing a scientific research. We know less abut ocean bottom than about Mars surface.

Here is Russian submarines research the bottom of Geneva lake: http://www.spiegel.de/internat...

But not to cut some ridiculous cables, but for science: biology, geography, history, etc.

Re:So

[bobbied]

If they do this, let them. Then clear the oceans of Russian vessels and let that asshole explain to his people why it is happening.

Of course this is to publicly show we are tracking them so it won't happen. I am sure the US can strategically cut cables at will, too.

I'm just guessing, but I'd not be surprised if there are not already devices IN PLACE from both sides, ready to just slice any and all cables they feel are necessary. Likely all that is necessary is to send the proper signals and the cables get cut and the devices disappear.

However, I'd like to point out that with the Russians, there is a whole lot less undersea cables required for their communications networks than the USA and it's allies uses based on the geography involved. So in this space the Russians do have a bit of an advantage.

Re:What concerns me is why US and Israel support I

[guestapoo]

Damn, I saw a rebuilt modern Grozny. It's what you mentioned in your Google search!?

When I read news about Tsarnaev brothers bombing in Boston in New York Times, I have seen many comments about "Chechen terrorists", instead of "rebel" I have seen before. Do the people change their mind when the shit happens to them!?

And, about "secret wars", no one can beat the U.S.

Fun fact:
Tamerlan Tsarnaev was on CIA terror database, and Russia warned U.S. about the brothers years before, but ignored.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/t...
http://www.foreignpolicyjourna...
https://www.corbettreport.com/...
Uncle of Tsarnaev, Ruslan worked with State Department and CIA connected USAID, and was married to the daughter of Graham E. Fuller - former high-ranked CIA official, who has served 20 years in the Foreign Service, mostly the Muslim World.

About Syria, U.S funded FSA, in fact, terrorist groups. They are terrorists as in definition in dictionary:

Longman dictionary:
someone who uses violence such as bombing, shooting etc to obtain political demands

or, by their actions: "Insurgent" Eats Heart of Syrian Soldier, or Free Syrian Army allegedly trafficking in human organs. They are just like the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) which U.S supported before.
Moreover, U.S official admitted that they has trained only 'four or five' Syrian fighters against Isis, top general testifies, and it's cost about 500 M, and the U.S funded groups frequently desert or handed armors, weapons to the Al Qaeda.