[ad_1]
The Commodore reminded that the core issue of naval warfare is control of the sea Marko Laaksonen Speech by the Naval Staff at the European Forum in Turku on Thursday.
He gave a speech In the panelwhose theme is the security of critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. In recent years, underwater infrastructure such as the Nord Stream and Baltic Connector gas pipelines and telecommunications cables have been the target of apparent sabotage, which is mainly suspected to be Russian hybrid influence.
Subscribe to Talouselämä’s free newsletter here
Laaksonen said that like the security environment, critical infrastructure in the Baltic Sea has also been militarized over the past decade. According to him, one view of breaking into underwater infrastructure – a soldier’s view – could be to question Western countries’ “maritime hegemony” in the Baltic Sea.
He reminded that during the Cold War, the Baltic Sea was controlled by the Soviet Union. Since then, the situation has been “turned upside down”, and the entry of Finland and Sweden into NATO has further strengthened the position of Western countries in the region.
“One view might be that this shows you don’t have complete control over this,” Laaksonen said.
Laaksonen believes that hybrid warfare is generally an “underpowered tactic”: a simple and cheap action that is unlikely to be caught and difficult for the other side to respond to, but can still cause great harm to the other side. On the other hand, the ocean is a perfect combat environment for hybrid warfare because in many places, national sovereignty is not clear at sea. Laaksonen said it is often unclear which country and which agency has jurisdiction.
The Navy is not the agency responsible for protecting underwater infrastructure, and Laaksonen said the Navy’s performance is focused on other matters. However, he said that even in the Baltic Sea today, there is so much marine infrastructure that comprehensive protection and control of it is impossible.
“It’s impossible to monitor every meter,” Laaksonen said.
“We have to prioritize those who really need supervision.”
Monitoring also does not necessarily prevent incidents from happening, although it can make it easier to detect problems after the fact. He believes that issues that arise in intervention include how and in what way to intervene if destructive activity is discovered.
As a way to improve infrastructure security, Laaksonen highlighted widely shared maps of where truly critical infrastructure is headed. Here, he said, NATO has also “taken a cue” from the Baltic Sea. In addition, legislation should clarify the responsibilities of various agencies and how they operate.
For example, in the case of damage to the Baltic Connector gas pipeline, according to him, cooperation between the authorities was able to proceed smoothly, but “for a while it seemed like a lottery as to how it would proceed.”
Furthermore, preparations and emergency arrangements must be in order.
“You can’t rely on a card on the ocean floor anymore,” Laaksonen said.
[ad_2]
Source link
