Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

    (www.cnn.com)
    577 points mooreds | 11 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 1.177s | source | bottom
    Show context
    leshokunin ◴[18 Nov 24 20:06 UTC] No.42176328[source]▶
    The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming, really needs to be dealt with.

    We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO escalation. This feels like constant creep.

    replies(9): >>42176387 #>>42176516 #>>42176555 #>>42176659 #>>42176846 #>>42176978 #>>42177068 #>>42177307 #>>42178494 #
    meiraleal[dead post] ◴[18 Nov 24 20:23 UTC] No.42176516[source]▶
    [flagged]
    1. georgeecollins ◴[18 Nov 24 20:36 UTC] No.42176686[source]▶
    The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911. So no, it is not only because of Russia.
    replies(4): >>42176944 #>>42177029 #>>42177173 #>>42178054 #
    2. RobotToaster ◴[18 Nov 24 20:58 UTC] No.42176944[source]▶
    Yugoslavia?
    replies(1): >>42177058 #
    3. CapricornNoble ◴[18 Nov 24 21:05 UTC] No.42177029[source]▶
    > The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911.

    False. NATO Command led the bombing of Libya in 2011 (taking over from the French).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector

    You can search for "NATO Libya Lessons" and get a ton of articles by analysts, many published in US military journals and/or written by US think tanks on the subject. For example, here's one from RAND:

    https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2014/11/natos-campaign-...

    4. VagabundoP ◴[18 Nov 24 21:08 UTC] No.42177058[source]▶
    That was not a NATO action.
    replies(4): >>42177081 #>>42177122 #>>42177219 #>>42178973 #
    5. JumpCrisscross ◴[18 Nov 24 21:10 UTC] No.42177081{3}[source]▶
    Yes, it was [1].

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

    6. PKop ◴[18 Nov 24 21:14 UTC] No.42177122{3}[source]▶
    Why do you say that?
    replies(1): >>42181558 #
    7. dragonwriter ◴[18 Nov 24 21:19 UTC] No.42177173[source]▶
    > The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict was in Afghanistan after 911.

    No, it's not; 9/11 was the only event that has led to invocation of the mutual defense commitments under Article 5.

    It has, however, gotten involved in other conflicts, both in response to UN calls and as a result of regional security consultations under Article 4. These include, most notably, Libya beginning 2011, Kosovo beginning in 1999, and Bosnia beginning in 1992,

    8. dragonwriter ◴[18 Nov 24 21:24 UTC] No.42177219{3}[source]▶
    I’m not sure if you are referring to the NATO intervention in the first part of the wars as Yugoslavia broke up (Bosnia, primarily starting in 1992) or later (the NATO-Yugoslavia war over Kosovo, starting 1999) or layer yet (the NATO involvement in the internal conflict of then-NATO partner North Macedonia in 2001), but all three were official NATO operations (and listed as such on NATO’s website.)
    9. s1artibartfast ◴[18 Nov 24 22:57 UTC] No.42178054[source]▶
    Ukraine?
    10. blashyrk ◴[19 Nov 24 00:42 UTC] No.42178973{3}[source]▶
    It's literally on the NATO website for crying out loud.
    11. sabbaticaldev ◴[19 Nov 24 09:35 UTC] No.42181558{4}[source]▶
    because he’s a normal brainwashed westerner. Still not understanding why they lost the NATO/ukraine vs russia war