Russia Bemoans NATO’s Decision to Protect Undersea Cables
Baltic Sentry blurs the role of military and law enforcement
Undersea cables were cut once again on December 25th, 2024, in the Baltic Sea by what was suspected as another hybrid warfare attack by the Russians and their allies. NATO suspects the Russians have assumed a strategy of cutting what is called critical undersea infrastructure, or CUI, in the Baltic Sea in response to NATO’s support of Ukraine in its ongoing war. Consequently, NATO initiated the Baltic Sentry operation to prevent additional attacks on the undersea infrastructure of its member states. NATO this week clarified its role as Russia accuses NATO of acting unlawfully in the region.
The term "hybrid warfare" encompasses a range of state-directed activities aimed at causing disruption and chaos, falling short of traditional warfare between states. This includes cyberattacks, misinformation and propaganda campaigns, election interference, espionage, and other aspects of state-sponsored activities against another state, short of open warfare; this also includes sabotage. Hybrid warfare is not new as a strategy, but it is relatively new in that it adds to the lexicon of defense terminology and is often used to expand the role of the military in areas typically outside of military responsibilities.
The military solution to hybrid warfare is that advanced modern militaries, such as the United States, are expected to operate in what is called multi-domain operations, or MDO, which was a national defense strategy formally adopted in 2018. MDO includes the following (according to U.S. doctrine):
• Coordinating military activities across land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace
• Coordinating military activities with non-military activities
• Utilizes technology to achieve outcomes in the right time and space
The U.S. throughout the Cold War used a combination of “hard power” represented by the strength of the U.S. armed forces, including its nuclear assets. It also used its “soft power,” and that included the use of its diplomatic influence to create a desired outcome. The backing of U.S. "hard power" and its global economic clout created this "soft power" influence.
However, despite the U.S. “soft power” being a beneficiary of the U.S. military, there was a healthy tension between the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Defense Department. The U.S. governmental philosophy was that the State Department, led by the Secretary of State, was the face of U.S. foreign policy and not the Department of Defense. This was codified in the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and 5 U.S.C. 101, which puts the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Treasury ahead of the Secretary of Defense in the line of presidential succession.
Incorporating hybrid warfare into the modern military's idea of warfare opens the door for the US and its allies so that the military can play a part in non-military activities that it didn't have a military role or solution to in the past. This now includes acts of sabotage, which used to be considered a law enforcement function. The above example is the U.S. formalization of hybrid warfare response under the guise of MDO, but NATO and the European Union have also adopted similar views that have only accelerated since the start of the Ukraine War.
The damaging of CUI in the Baltic Sea is considered an act of sabotage and therefore part of hybrid warfare, so a MDO response is justified by NATO and its partners in the Baltic Sea. The result is that NATO has launched an operation called Baltic Sentry this month, and there has been no set timeline for the operation to end.
NATO this week provided additional details about the operation and the assets dedicated to it. The operation will take place in the waters between Estonia and Finland, specifically in the Baltic Sea and the Gulf of Finland. This is the geographic location leading up to the ports of the Russian St. Petersburg’s area and the Leningrad Military District. The operation would also include coordination with all eight NATO countries that are along the Baltic Sea.
The goal of the mission, according to Commodore Arjen Warnaar of the Royal Dutch Navy and commander of a naval group that is part of Baltic Sentry, is to deter any more acts of sabotage to CUI by providing enhanced monitoring and comprehensive surveillance. This will include the use of naval and air assets (including surveillance and strike fighter aircraft), naval surface drones, and satellite surveillance.
Commodore Warnaar, during a media event to discuss Baltic Sentry, said that NATO will provide the "eyes and ears," as he explained that NATO is acting just as civilian law enforcement would in deterring crime in a neighborhood. This simple example not only accurately illustrates what NATO is doing, but it also unintentionally underscores the fact that NATO is engaging in a non-military operation with Baltic Sentry.
NATO will provide two naval groups to provide the surface force that will coordinate with national maritime headquarters in the region to connect the military assets of the NATO operation with the national naval and air assets and law enforcement assets, including coast guards, to create an interconnected view of activities occurring in the Baltic region. This will have NATO operating in international waters and other assets operating in both international and national waters. Commodore Warnaar stated that NATO would not intercept ships it is monitoring but would assist in intercepts that are to be completed by national authorities.
The basic role is that NATO is militarizing the law enforcement function by making it the first contact and coordinator of suspicious activities that could damage CUI. This role by NATO has brought protests from both the Russian Foreign Ministry and Kremlin spokespersons. Russia stated on January 14th that NATO was conducting abuses in the Baltic Sea by stating that NATO was focusing its flotilla between Finland and Estonia and that it was not meaning to increase deterrence but to create a barrier to shipping to Russia, thus trying to contain Russia and its commerce.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated that NATO was violating international law by protecting undersea infrastructure since they are not listed under freedom of navigation laws; thus NATO could not justify the deployment of warships and other military assets in international waters. Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko stated that Russia would use its military to protect its interests in the region. The Russians are clearly creating tensions through their activities in damaging CUI, but they are not necessarily wrong in their assessment, as seen by NATO naval assets operating in the waters leading to St. Petersburg.
Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist revolutionary leader and later leader of communist China, had famously used what was called “gray zone” tactics in his efforts to use non-military means to escalate tensions and create a crisis short of open warfare. This has eventually become a national characteristic of Chinese philosophy: meeting the political aims of the country. Hybrid warfare is basically a rebranding and modernization of traditional Mao’s description of gray zone tactics.
As the opponents to Mao have struggled to respond to gray zone tactics short of going to open hostility, so have NATO and the U.S. with hybrid warfare. The first step in seeking solutions was to define hybrid warfare. The development of MDO doctrines was a legitimate military strategy for both the U.S. and NATO, and China is also implementing this model. This slippery slope is the inclusion of nonmilitary aspects of MDO, which legitimizes a military response to hybrid warfare.
The use of the military in hybrid warfare does not mean that the military assumes a kinetic response to it but that its MDO assets are used for nonmilitary roles. This means that militaries are having to take on roles that are not traditional military roles in the West. Military personnel are expected to act outside of their defense role and take on functions that belong to law enforcement, which sabotage, as seen in the CUI, would traditionally fall under.
This means that much of military training has to be expanded to include law enforcement tactics and creates an entirely new set of variables that military service members will be expected to master. This will dilute the training and effectiveness of the key role of the military, or they will not be effectively trained in law enforcement and deterrence and will fail miserably and possibly create an international incident. It would also add another set of confusing rules of engagement that will further complicate military training and readiness.
The challenges of hybrid warfare are immense, and the military needs to be able to operate effectively in an MDO environment, which is key to an effective modern military. The use of the military being the first response, as we see in Baltic Sentry, is unwise for both the effectiveness of the military in their key role of providing national defense and maintaining traditional Western values of not having the military serve as enforcers of the law. The Western solution should be to seek soft power solutions to the issue and increase law enforcement resources to areas like the coast guard and customs and border protections that are supported by economic measures if needed. The coast guard should have the resources and support to do what it does best, while the military should do what it does best.
If you like my content, please consider becoming a Substack subscriber to Pegasus Research or support me through Patreon, Buy Me A Coffee or Ko-Fi.
References:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/01/nato-builds-baltic-sentry-network-across-region/
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/nato-turns-to-sea-drones-to-defend-its-fragile-undersea-cable-network/ar-AA1xNqAz?ocid=BingNewsSerp
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-issues-warning-over-nato-flotilla-abuses-in-baltic-sea/ar-AA1xNdtd?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=fb7723a384c34450bd654418817fbaa4&ei=19
Excellent analysis!