Most active commenters
  • aguaviva(3)

←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 15 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.686s | source | bottom
Show context
Etheryte ◴[18 Nov 24 19:49 UTC] No.42176174[source]▶
So to keep score, in the last year we've seen cables sabotaged between Finland and Germany, Lithuania and Sweden, Estonia and Sweden, Estonia and Finland. Any others I missed? You might say it's too early to call it sabotage, but the earliest two cable incidents were exactly the same, so it's hardly a coincidence at this point.
replies(5): >>42176529 #>>42176719 #>>42177150 #>>42177199 #>>42177263 #
barryrandall ◴[18 Nov 24 20:39 UTC] No.42176719[source]▶
Russia warned that they were going to do this last week. I think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that 1) this was sabotage and 2) it was Russia.
replies(2): >>42176971 #>>42177112 #
1. severino ◴[18 Nov 24 21:13 UTC] No.42177112[source]▶
Hey, hold your horses. Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, yet after the sabotage, everybody said "it was Russia". Now about this incident, to be consistent, I'm inclined to think it was the Americans.
replies(2): >>42177138 #>>42177139 #
2. aguaviva ◴[18 Nov 24 21:16 UTC] No.42177138[source]▶
Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline,

Nope. He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off.

everybody said "it was Russia"

Nope -- some people said that.

The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just don't know yet".

replies(3): >>42177172 #>>42177481 #>>42177798 #
3. tptacek ◴[18 Nov 24 21:16 UTC] No.42177139[source]▶
I believe at this point we have a pretty good guess as to who sabotaged the pipeline, and it wasn't the US.
replies(2): >>42177740 #>>42179336 #
4. Supermancho ◴[18 Nov 24 21:19 UTC] No.42177172[source]▶
Was probably the ones who didn't want to be on the hook for their end of the contract being violated by not sending resources down the pipeline.
5. okasaki ◴[18 Nov 24 21:49 UTC] No.42177481[source]▶
Come on dude. He said "we will bring an end to it", and when the reporter challenged him how he's going to do this given that it's a deal between Germany and Russia, he said "I promise you we will be able to do it."

People have been convicted of murder on less evidence.

6. sharpshadow ◴[18 Nov 24 22:21 UTC] No.42177740[source]▶
Who is we and please enlighten me.
replies(1): >>42181847 #
7. geysersam ◴[18 Nov 24 22:29 UTC] No.42177798[source]▶
> He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off.

When Biden said that he was talking next to the person with the power to legally shut it off, the German chancellor. If he and Biden were in agreement on that point, that Nord Stream would be shut off if Russia invaded Ukraine, why did Biden say that explicitly but not Scholz, even after being asked directly by the journalists present? If they were not in agreement on that point, how could Biden promise that they would put an end to it?

> The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just don't know yet".

Agreed.

replies(1): >>42178057 #
8. aguaviva ◴[18 Nov 24 22:57 UTC] No.42178057{3}[source]▶
If they were not in agreement on that point, how could Biden promise that they would put an end to it?

Typical politician nonsense.

None of which means he was intending, or suggesting the idea of actually blowing it up.

9. csomar ◴[19 Nov 24 01:43 UTC] No.42179336[source]▶
No we do not. Saying it with "confidence" and "authority" doesn't make true either.
replies(1): >>42179439 #
10. tptacek ◴[19 Nov 24 02:03 UTC] No.42179439{3}[source]▶
Sure we do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...
replies(2): >>42179612 #>>42180862 #
11. csomar ◴[19 Nov 24 02:38 UTC] No.42179612{4}[source]▶
The same article you link only quote "speculation" on the role of Ukraine. There is no detailed evidence of the people involved (and if some certain other agencies are involved in this).
replies(2): >>42179645 #>>42179690 #
12. ◴[19 Nov 24 02:47 UTC] No.42179645{5}[source]▶
13. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 02:55 UTC] No.42179690{5}[source]▶
The same article you link only quote "speculation" on the role of Ukraine

It does not, and you're misreading the one sentence in the article where that word appears.

14. fractallyte ◴[19 Nov 24 07:35 UTC] No.42180862{4}[source]▶
The article's only sources are "people familiar with the operation". That's a heck of a lot to take on trust, particularly considering the increasingly disjointed relationship between Ukraine and the US, and the increasingly evident reach of the Kremlin's intelligence services and supporting propaganda machinery.
15. theshrike79 ◴[19 Nov 24 10:16 UTC] No.42181847{3}[source]▶
The rest of the world who aren't mainlining Russian propaganda.