By Matt Underwood Finland makes progress in cable breach investigation, police say, and it’s a situation that’s got a lot of people understandably worked up. From what’s being discussed, there’s a strong feeling that Russia is behind these breaches, and the sentiment is that more assertive action is needed. It’s not a secret anymore, according to the whispers, it’s pretty much a given. People are frustrated, and it’s easy to see why. These incidents are a direct attack on critical infrastructure, and they’re happening repeatedly. The sense of urgency is palpable.
Given the gravity of the situation, the questions being asked are spot on. What is Finland doing? What’s the public response within the country? Some are calling for Finland to take decisive action, fearing that a lack of consequences will only encourage further acts of sabotage. The concern is that Russia will see it as a green light, and that these attacks will just escalate. The idea of letting “criminals” off the hook seems unacceptable to many, and the call for serious repercussions is loud and clear. There is a strong feeling that the current approach isn’t sufficient, and that more needs to be done.
This isn’t just about damage to cables. The argument made here is that this kind of sabotage should be considered an act of terrorism. It is an act that should warrant the harshest possible penalties. The proposals range from seizing the implicated ships to hitting Russia with economic sanctions. The idea that this is more than just criminal activity is at the heart of many of the suggestions, and that the appropriate legal response should reflect that. The scope of actions suggested extends beyond the immediate incidents. Some argue for increased monitoring of waterways, proactive measures against suspected Russian vessels, and enhanced cybersecurity collaboration with Ukraine.
But it’s not as simple as wanting to punish those responsible. The context that some of the suggestions are placed in includes the practical limitations faced by Finland and other countries in dealing with these issues. The previous instances of similar attacks and the legal and jurisdictional challenges that the courts have faced in the past are relevant. The fact that the crews of ships involved in these incidents are often defended by the same lawyer, who, coincidentally, has ties to Russia, adds another layer of intrigue and suspicion. The discussion also touches upon international law, particularly the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and how it complicates the response. The international framework, while important, can sometimes be a hindrance.
The West faces a bit of a bind, really. It has to act within the bounds of international law and treaties, which, in a situation like this, can limit the options available. The problem is that Russia seems less constrained by these same rules, which gives it an edge. It is in Russia’s interest to weaken the international system. Some feel that the response from the West is insufficient. The constant refrain of “it keeps happening” points to the frustration that is growing. The sentiment is that if there is no response, or the response isn’t strong enough, it sends the wrong message.
The call for stronger action is a recurring theme, with ideas ranging from escalating the provision of weaponry to Ukraine to the suggestion of more aggressive maritime patrols. The belief is that a clear display of force, coupled with consequences, is necessary to deter future attacks. At the heart of it all is the idea that inaction only emboldens the perpetrators. Some suggest that marine traffic to and from Russia be escorted. There is also the idea of severing Russia’s access to the internet.
Now, there are more measured voices in the debate, too. The view that the response should be a unified one from the EU and NATO is a good one, and the idea of Finland being left to shoulder the burden alone is deemed both unfair and unrealistic. The Nordic countries, including Finland, are already significant contributors to military aid for Ukraine. What’s also clear is that whatever is done, needs to be done collectively. It’s a team effort. The sentiment is that the solution isn’t merely about a specific action, but a comprehensive, well-coordinated, and united approach.
The debate, of course, has a wide range of opinions. Some people think it’s unfair to just sink the ships and want them to be captured and properly investigated. The suggestion is also made to simply help Ukraine with weapons, and to let them deal with it. Then there are voices that seem to think that there is no action, and the country is just sitting back and watching. The point is being made that some actions have been taken, and the situation is more complex than it might seem at first glance. It goes to show that more often than not, the situation is far from what people think it is, and understanding what is going on at the very least warrants understanding the issues and legal matters at hand.