Strategic North
@strategicnorth.bsky.social
"Strategic North" is a podcast on geopolitics, intelligence, and security risks. We explore emerging risks, geopolitical events, and the role of intelligence and investigations in understanding complex situations and supporting decisions.
Conclusion
The assumption of sabotage, potentially involving state actors like Russia or China, is plausible but unconfirmed. 🧵/End
The assumption of sabotage, potentially involving state actors like Russia or China, is plausible but unconfirmed. 🧵/End
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Conclusion
The assumption of sabotage, potentially involving state actors like Russia or China, is plausible but unconfirmed. 🧵/End
The assumption of sabotage, potentially involving state actors like Russia or China, is plausible but unconfirmed. 🧵/End
Alternative Perspectives
Other possible explanations include accidental damage from commercial activities, natural underwater phenomena, or non-state actors attempting to exploit regional instability. Each scenario would require a distinct investigative and diplomatic approach. But this unlikely
Other possible explanations include accidental damage from commercial activities, natural underwater phenomena, or non-state actors attempting to exploit regional instability. Each scenario would require a distinct investigative and diplomatic approach. But this unlikely
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Alternative Perspectives
Other possible explanations include accidental damage from commercial activities, natural underwater phenomena, or non-state actors attempting to exploit regional instability. Each scenario would require a distinct investigative and diplomatic approach. But this unlikely
Other possible explanations include accidental damage from commercial activities, natural underwater phenomena, or non-state actors attempting to exploit regional instability. Each scenario would require a distinct investigative and diplomatic approach. But this unlikely
Key Assumption 5: Escalating NATO Tensions
It is assumed these incidents will escalate NATO-Russia tensions. This assumption hinges on perceptions of Russian or allied actions. If unfounded, it risks unnecessary strain in international relations and misaligned strategic policies.
It is assumed these incidents will escalate NATO-Russia tensions. This assumption hinges on perceptions of Russian or allied actions. If unfounded, it risks unnecessary strain in international relations and misaligned strategic policies.
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Key Assumption 5: Escalating NATO Tensions
It is assumed these incidents will escalate NATO-Russia tensions. This assumption hinges on perceptions of Russian or allied actions. If unfounded, it risks unnecessary strain in international relations and misaligned strategic policies.
It is assumed these incidents will escalate NATO-Russia tensions. This assumption hinges on perceptions of Russian or allied actions. If unfounded, it risks unnecessary strain in international relations and misaligned strategic policies.
Key Assumption 4: Simultaneity as Deliberate
The damage occurring at two sites in close proximity and time suggests coordination. If this assumption is wrong, the incidents might represent a rare coincidence of natural or unrelated technical issues, reducing the likelihood of intentional sabotage.
The damage occurring at two sites in close proximity and time suggests coordination. If this assumption is wrong, the incidents might represent a rare coincidence of natural or unrelated technical issues, reducing the likelihood of intentional sabotage.
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Key Assumption 4: Simultaneity as Deliberate
The damage occurring at two sites in close proximity and time suggests coordination. If this assumption is wrong, the incidents might represent a rare coincidence of natural or unrelated technical issues, reducing the likelihood of intentional sabotage.
The damage occurring at two sites in close proximity and time suggests coordination. If this assumption is wrong, the incidents might represent a rare coincidence of natural or unrelated technical issues, reducing the likelihood of intentional sabotage.
Key Assumption 3
The Chinese vessel Yi Peng 3 is implicated due to suspicious behavior, such as crossing damage sites and disabling its AIS. However, no direct link exists. If untrue, focusing on the ship may detract from identifying the actual cause or actor behind the incidents.
The Chinese vessel Yi Peng 3 is implicated due to suspicious behavior, such as crossing damage sites and disabling its AIS. However, no direct link exists. If untrue, focusing on the ship may detract from identifying the actual cause or actor behind the incidents.
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Key Assumption 3
The Chinese vessel Yi Peng 3 is implicated due to suspicious behavior, such as crossing damage sites and disabling its AIS. However, no direct link exists. If untrue, focusing on the ship may detract from identifying the actual cause or actor behind the incidents.
The Chinese vessel Yi Peng 3 is implicated due to suspicious behavior, such as crossing damage sites and disabling its AIS. However, no direct link exists. If untrue, focusing on the ship may detract from identifying the actual cause or actor behind the incidents.
Key Assumption 2
🇷🇺is assumed to be involved due to its history of asymmetric warfare and NATO opposition. However, no direct evidence links Russia to the incidents. If false, other state or non-state actors, including accidental causes, may be responsible, altering NATO’s strategic response.
🇷🇺is assumed to be involved due to its history of asymmetric warfare and NATO opposition. However, no direct evidence links Russia to the incidents. If false, other state or non-state actors, including accidental causes, may be responsible, altering NATO’s strategic response.
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Key Assumption 2
🇷🇺is assumed to be involved due to its history of asymmetric warfare and NATO opposition. However, no direct evidence links Russia to the incidents. If false, other state or non-state actors, including accidental causes, may be responsible, altering NATO’s strategic response.
🇷🇺is assumed to be involved due to its history of asymmetric warfare and NATO opposition. However, no direct evidence links Russia to the incidents. If false, other state or non-state actors, including accidental causes, may be responsible, altering NATO’s strategic response.
Key Assumption Sabotage
The assumption that sabotage caused the cable damage is based on physical evidence of external impacts and geopolitical tensions. If incorrect, the damage may stem from natural causes or accidental events, which would shift the narrative away from deliberate hybrid warfare.
The assumption that sabotage caused the cable damage is based on physical evidence of external impacts and geopolitical tensions. If incorrect, the damage may stem from natural causes or accidental events, which would shift the narrative away from deliberate hybrid warfare.
November 23, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Key Assumption Sabotage
The assumption that sabotage caused the cable damage is based on physical evidence of external impacts and geopolitical tensions. If incorrect, the damage may stem from natural causes or accidental events, which would shift the narrative away from deliberate hybrid warfare.
The assumption that sabotage caused the cable damage is based on physical evidence of external impacts and geopolitical tensions. If incorrect, the damage may stem from natural causes or accidental events, which would shift the narrative away from deliberate hybrid warfare.