By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A key communication cable near Evenes Air Base, home to Norway’s NATO QRA F-35 fighter jets and P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, was deliberately severed via multiple deep cuts made with an angle grinder. Despite the strategic location of the cable near crucial military infrastructure, the Nordland Police District closed the case due to a lack of suspects. This incident follows recent warnings from the PST regarding potential Russian sabotage activities within Norway. The incident adds to a pattern of suspicious cable cutting incidents in recent years.
Read the original article here
An angle grinder was used to sever telecommunications cables leading to a critical Northern Norway military airbase. This act of sabotage, while seemingly simple in its execution, highlights a concerning vulnerability in crucial infrastructure and raises questions about the perpetrators and their motives. The precision involved suggests a degree of planning and knowledge of the cable’s location, ruling out mere random vandalism.
The ease with which such an attack can be carried out is alarming. The comment about the surprising lack of cordless grinders in similar crimes underscores this point; their accessibility and effectiveness in causing significant disruption make them a potentially dangerous tool in the hands of malicious actors. The casual conversation about the cable’s exposed location on the ground further emphasizes a lapse in security protocols. The suggestion to bury or reinforce the cable highlights the lack of foresight in initial installation, potentially indicative of a broader issue of prioritizing expediency over long-term security.
The immediate reaction to the incident centers on identifying the culprit. While the identity is known to some, the reticence to publicly name them speaks volumes about the delicate geopolitical situation. The implication is that naming the responsible party would escalate international tensions, a testament to the potentially far-reaching consequences of this seemingly localized act of sabotage. The comparison to the sabotage of communication cables during the Paris Olympics further emphasizes a disturbing trend of targeting communication infrastructure.
Speculation immediately turns to Russia. The strong suspicion, however unsubstantiated, points to potential espionage as a motivation, fueled by the strategic importance of the airbase. The presence of advanced technology like F-35 fighter jets makes the base an attractive target for intelligence gathering. The comments about Russia’s interest in stealing technology and the suggestions of Russian involvement are laced with anger and frustration, reflecting a sense of helplessness in the face of such targeted attacks. The comparison between the incident and other alleged acts of sabotage by Russia reinforces this suspicion.
The response to the incident also reveals underlying concerns about the larger geopolitical context. The comments expressing frustration about the EU’s perceived inaction and leniency towards Russian tourists underscore a sense of vulnerability and disillusionment. The belief that Norway, having profited handsomely from the war in Ukraine, is bearing the brunt of these attacks without sufficient support fuels this sentiment. The silencing of dissent on online platforms further exacerbates the sense of frustration and suppressed information.
The attack is also viewed within the context of potential wider conflict. The act is considered a training exercise, intended to slow down NATO response times and isolate targets in future conflicts. The low-impact nature of the attack itself is seen as a calculated strategy to provoke a response without escalating to outright warfare, a method of testing defenses and identifying vulnerabilities. The suggestion that NATO and Norway are likely strengthening their communication networks and security measures in response points to a broader adaptation and fortification in the face of such threats.
Finally, there’s a thread of cynicism running throughout the discussion, questioning the responses from various players involved. The comment regarding the owner of Starlink and their trustworthiness in handling data contrasts the dependence on private entities for crucial infrastructure with inherent risks. The overall sense is one of a security failure due to negligence and lack of foresight, exacerbated by complex geopolitical calculations, where open accusations against Russia, the likely culprit, risk sparking a much larger conflict. The focus shifts from the immediate damage to the broader picture of strategic vulnerabilities and the intricate dynamics of international relations and responses.