Most active commenters
  • pelasaco(12)
  • oneshtein(11)
  • (9)
  • dotancohen(9)
  • esarbe(9)
  • yakshaving_jgt(8)
  • aguaviva(8)
  • mopsi(7)
  • aa-jv(6)
  • stoperaticless(6)

←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 207 comments | | HN request time: 2.711s | source | bottom
Show context
staplung ◴[] No.42176496[source]
It's worth mentioning that cable breakages happen quite often; globally about 200 times per year [1] and the article itself mentions that just last year, two other cables and a gas pipeline were taken out by an anchor. The Gulf of Finland is evidently quite shallow. From what I understand, cable repair ships are likely to use ROVs for parts of repair jobs but only when the water is shallow so hopefully they can figure out whether the damage looks like sabotage before they sever the cable to repair it. Of course, if you're a bad actor and want plausible deniability, maybe you'd make it look like anchor damage or, deliberately drag an anchor right over the cables.

Cable repairs are certainly annoying and for the operator of the cable, expensive. However, they are usually repaired relatively quickly. I'd be more worried if many more cables were severed at the same time. If you're only going to break one or two a year, you might as well not bother.

1: https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea...

replies(11): >>42177868 #>>42178949 #>>42179789 #>>42181124 #>>42181825 #>>42182141 #>>42182166 #>>42182377 #>>42183002 #>>42184314 #>>42187800 #
1. Etheryte ◴[] No.42177868[source]
This is a misleading framing. The two cables last year were not taken out by an anchor as an accident, it was literally a ship putting down its anchor just before the cable and then dragging it over the cable. In other words, sabotage. There's no point in trying to color any of this with rose tinted glasses when it's clear who's done it and why.
replies(11): >>42178728 #>>42178764 #>>42178921 #>>42179627 #>>42181556 #>>42181978 #>>42182013 #>>42182512 #>>42182826 #>>42182949 #>>42198088 #
2. qingcharles ◴[] No.42178764[source]
They just released a statement saying it is sad that they have to be suspicious that it is, perhaps, sabotage:

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/-/2685132

replies(1): >>42182319 #
3. dgfitz ◴[] No.42178794[source]
When “coincidences” like this percolate up to the general public, I think it is in fact noteworthy.
4. burkaman ◴[] No.42178804[source]
There is strong circumstantial evidence (https://www.politico.eu/article/balticconnector-damage-likel...) and an open Estonian investigation. None of us know whether or not there is direct evidence that has not been made public.
replies(2): >>42178868 #>>42180861 #
5. SiempreViernes ◴[] No.42178868{3}[source]
Strong circumstantial evidence == minister said “I'm not the sea captain. But I would think that you would notice that you're dragging an anchor behind you for hundreds of kilometers”.
6. SiempreViernes ◴[] No.42178921[source]
Have you filed your observations of the ships anchor at sea to the authorities? Because it does sound strange, if you indeed have a witness to this, that they dropped and then hoisted their anchors to damage infrastructure four times that day:

> Swedish-Estonian telecoms cable at 1513 GMT, then over the Russian cable at around 2020 GMT, the [Balticconnector gas pipeline] at 2220 GMT and a Finland-Estonia telecoms line at 2349 GMT.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-telecoms-ca...

7. gmerc ◴[] No.42179082[source]
At certain odds, statistical likelihood is evidence
8. Aloisius ◴[] No.42179627[source]
> it was literally a ship putting down its anchor just before the cable and then dragging it over the cable

I don't understand. That's how I'd expect most accidents to happen. Someone decides to anchor too close to an undersea cable, the anchor fails to hold and the drifting ship drags the anchor over the cable damaging it.

I'm not saying it wasn't sabotage, but there needs to be something a bit more than that.

Source: have dragged anchors - thankfully never near undersea cables

replies(5): >>42179695 #>>42180538 #>>42180552 #>>42182029 #>>42187149 #
9. roenxi ◴[] No.42179695[source]
I can only upvote. How does the anchor come into contact with the cable if not by that exact sequence of steps? The ship isn't sailing through the Gulf with its anchor down, it has to go near the cable, drop anchor then drag. Otherwise the cable and anchor will not interact. This is the only way an accident could happen (almost).
replies(2): >>42179715 #>>42181673 #
10. Loudergood ◴[] No.42179715{3}[source]
The problem comes when most of these cables land right at major ports.
11. rrr_oh_man ◴[] No.42180365{3}[source]
Don’t trust the Je… eh, Russians.

I’m not sure whether you are serious with that xenophobic comment.

replies(4): >>42180416 #>>42180864 #>>42182332 #>>42182626 #
12. ◴[] No.42180382[source]
13. denkmoon ◴[] No.42180383{3}[source]
I'm not sure a supporter of Putin's regime and Russian agitation in Europe would name themselves after Gorbachev...
replies(2): >>42180646 #>>42181542 #
14. theGeatZhopa ◴[] No.42180416{4}[source]
did you just say JEHOVAH?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cnn2aGVcCEc

15. Maxion ◴[] No.42180538[source]
The case last year with the gas pipeline, the Chinese / Russian owned left Kaliningrad, and then while sailing, dropped its anchor before the pipeline and cable, and then dragged it over them, and then raised it. It was apparently accidental, yet both the Chinese and Russians didn't want the crew interviewed, the Estonian and the Finnish authorities both shrugged and didn't really care, and the Estonian energy prices were severly impacted for ~9 months.

IMO very very likely sabotage, and brushed under the rug in fear of Russian escalation.

replies(7): >>42180556 #>>42180869 #>>42181823 #>>42182002 #>>42182265 #>>42182546 #>>42193740 #
16. brnt ◴[] No.42180548[source]
As is usually the case, before a crime is investigated.

Hence investigations, good detectives, good hunches, etc.

17. brnt ◴[] No.42180552[source]
Yeah if I could just anchor these boats right when its windy just over your cables that'd be great.

Whoopsy, well would you ever!

18. bashwizard ◴[] No.42180581[source]
And then there's common sense. Something most people seems to lack.
19. ◴[] No.42180646{4}[source]
20. gorbachev ◴[] No.42180861{3}[source]
So no evidence then at all. It's just speculation.
21. olivermuty ◴[] No.42180864{4}[source]
Don’t trust the Russians has been safe doctrine in europe for several decades.

Bandit state.

replies(1): >>42181619 #
22. card_zero ◴[] No.42180869{3}[source]
* The Chinese / Russian owned what left Kaliningrad?

* Which pipeline?

* Last year (2023), not 2022?

replies(2): >>42180998 #>>42181077 #
23. smcl ◴[] No.42180998{4}[source]
There are very few things which can be described as “setting sail” and can “drop anchor” so I think you can fill the gap easily
replies(1): >>42181055 #
24. jpc0 ◴[] No.42181055{5}[source]
Of the big metal things that can "set sail" and "drop anchor" there happens to be a very large set of classifications...

But using your heuristics, that catamarang crew should probably have been interviewed.

replies(1): >>42182834 #
25. kookamamie ◴[] No.42181077{4}[source]
A ship. The ship is named Newnew Polar Bear.
replies(1): >>42181221 #
26. ninjin ◴[] No.42181221{5}[source]
Reference for those of us unfamiliar with the incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newnew_Polar_Bear#Damage_to_un...

replies(2): >>42181737 #>>42182175 #
27. chikere232 ◴[] No.42181542{4}[source]
Obvious lying seems like part of the fun for russian propagandists so I wouldn't be surprised
28. randomcarbloke ◴[] No.42181556[source]
the culprits have been getting chased around the north sea for the past two months suspected of attempting to perpetrate the same in other locations.
29. sabbaticaldev ◴[] No.42181619{5}[source]
Same is said about the english, spanish, french, dutch colonizers, still didn’t pay for wreaking the world in their favor.
replies(1): >>42182063 #
30. lrasinen ◴[] No.42181673{3}[source]
New New Polar Bear (the Nov 2023 case) was definitely sailing down the Gulf with its anchor down. Estonian defense minister stated at the time there are drag tracks in the seabed for "over 185 km".

(Source: https://www.hs.fi/maailma/art-2000010015226.html)

31. card_zero ◴[] No.42181737{6}[source]
Thank you! Had heard nothing about this one.
32. theshrike79 ◴[] No.42181823{3}[source]
The Finnish authorities know exactly who did it, but what are they going to do?

Sanction Russia? Fire a few missiles at Moscow? Write a sternly worded letter?

It's just added to the pile of "shit that Russia does without repercussions" which is opened when (not if) they actually cross the border to Finland and find out what happens when you fuck around with a country who's been preparing for Russian invasion for 100 years.

replies(1): >>42182003 #
33. jajko ◴[] No.42181970{5}[source]
again (we in the eastern part have very fond memories of russian oppression and enslavement of whole eastern block, shooting people on the streets and on the borders for the heinous crime of wanting to escape that communist paradise... thats why baltics, Finland or Poland have rather strong military, while slovakia and hungary have highly corrupt governments that only fear what democracy brings so they lean east for protection)
34. stoperaticless ◴[] No.42181978[source]
Well, you never know 100%. There is a small (really small) chance it was an accident. Just like there is a small chance that Al Capone was innocent man.

(But really, it clearly has “Russia” written all over it)

replies(2): >>42182151 #>>42195744 #
35. lovegrenoble ◴[] No.42182002{3}[source]
Highly likely ))
36. stoperaticless ◴[] No.42182003{4}[source]
Action does not need to be immediate.

Plan is clear: continue suppporting Ukraine, continue Russian isolation.

37. a2800276 ◴[] No.42182013[source]
> when it's clear who's done it and why.

Is it though? From my understanding it's clearly sabotage, but who's responsible is open to some debate. Compare to NordStream, it's still not officially determined who's responsible.

replies(3): >>42182215 #>>42182308 #>>42186809 #
38. stoperaticless ◴[] No.42182029[source]
Have you draged anchor for 100+km?
39. Sabinus ◴[] No.42182063{6}[source]
But for the French they all got rid of their colonies. Russia's historical land empire lives on, and the breakup of their most recent greater one is mourned by their current leader. Lets have some perspective.
replies(1): >>42182372 #
40. pelasaco ◴[] No.42182151[source]
just to be honest, the Pipelines explosion, had "Russia" written all over it, except after investigation, and a possible culprit, i.e not Russia, then nobody wanted to discuss about it anymore. I think the hysteria is too high, people are thirsty for War, looks like..
replies(4): >>42182183 #>>42182237 #>>42182451 #>>42182612 #
41. pelasaco ◴[] No.42182175{6}[source]
"In August 2024, an internal Chinese investigation indicated that the ship was indeed responsible for the damage, claiming it was an accident due to heavy weather rather than intentional sabotage.[23][24]"

The internal Chinese investigation indicated that was an accident.. LOL

replies(1): >>42195712 #
42. mciancia ◴[] No.42182183{3}[source]
> people are thirsty for War, looks like

Russians, yes

replies(1): >>42182243 #
43. lynx23 ◴[] No.42182215[source]
> officially determined who's responsible

Becuase they are afraid to figure out the truth. It might not fit the propaganda narrative.

replies(1): >>42182476 #
44. benterix ◴[] No.42182237{3}[source]
> people are thirsty for War, looks like..

Nobody in the West wants any war. The usual tactics of Putin is to do what he wants whether on his or foreign soil, using poisoning etc. in a way that everybody knows it's him but he will politely deny. It's a kind of a silly game, the GRU could just have put a bullet in Lytvynenko's head but they choose a slow death to show off.

replies(2): >>42182819 #>>42184098 #
45. vasco ◴[] No.42182243{4}[source]
I wish I lived in a world where it's so easy to know who is good and who is evil and to pinpoint them so well.
replies(6): >>42182338 #>>42182342 #>>42182469 #>>42182601 #>>42185498 #>>42188753 #
46. benterix ◴[] No.42182265{3}[source]
> IMO very very likely sabotage, and brushed under the rug in fear of Russian escalation.

But what can they do? Imagine you are the leader of a small European country like the Netherlands, and one day Russia decides to shot down your passenger plane with 300 people on board. You can do absolutely nothing.

But once a proxy war started, of course the Netherlands are doing their best to make Putin pay for the lives of these innocent people. He basically alienated many countries in this way and then complains of "Russophobia".

replies(2): >>42186711 #>>42191719 #
47. account42 ◴[] No.42182308[source]
It's still not officially made public who's responsible.
48. account42 ◴[] No.42182319[source]
Oh no, the EU is gasp deeply concerned.
49. oneshtein ◴[] No.42182332{4}[source]
Comment is not xenophobic, it's anti-imperialistic.
50. peutetre ◴[] No.42182338{5}[source]
You do. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not an ambiguous war. Russia is plainly in the wrong.
replies(2): >>42182523 #>>42182948 #
51. ◴[] No.42182342{5}[source]
52. sabbaticaldev ◴[] No.42182372{7}[source]
great example, the french. Still encrusted north of brazil and calling themselves part of the Amazon. you really should have some perspective
replies(1): >>42189114 #
53. oneshtein ◴[] No.42182451{3}[source]
Delivery of Russian gas was stopped by Russia in violation of contract. European gas companies demands $20 billion in compensation. Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia.

Of course, Russians used false flag as usual, to blame Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.

replies(5): >>42182510 #>>42182759 #>>42182787 #>>42183833 #>>42183897 #
54. oneshtein ◴[] No.42182469{5}[source]
This planet voted in UN that Russian Federation is aggressor. Which world you represent?
replies(1): >>42184526 #
55. oneshtein ◴[] No.42182476{3}[source]
FUD
56. FrustratedMonky ◴[] No.42182510{4}[source]
Wait. Wasn't it Ukraine that blew up the pipeline? I'm all for them defending themselves.

Are you saying it was actually Russia that did it? They blew up own pipeline?

replies(2): >>42182608 #>>42182752 #
57. castigatio ◴[] No.42182512[source]
But this person is just speaking the truth - I worked for an ISP with cable landing stations. These cables went down several times a year due to physical damage of non nefarious kinds. It's not obvious that this malicious. It certainly might be but it's not a slam dunk.
replies(1): >>42182582 #
58. FrustratedMonky ◴[] No.42182523{6}[source]
Yeah.

Lot of Russian Apologist.

Russia invades Ukraine -> It is Biden's fault, he ordered it.

Russia actually invading and killing -> It was NATO's fault for discussing admission.

Like, Russia is actually 'doing the bad things'.

replies(1): >>42184032 #
59. FrustratedMonky ◴[] No.42182546{3}[source]
"Estonian and the Finnish authorities both shrugged and didn't really care"

Is this true?

Or

Are we now in a world where we are all living in fear of actual military retribution for speaking out?

replies(1): >>42183158 #
60. ajuc ◴[] No.42182582[source]
Yeah and if you shoot someone and they die it might be an unrelated heart attack.
replies(2): >>42182936 #>>42185696 #
61. esarbe ◴[] No.42182601{5}[source]
It is easy; nations that attack other nations unprovoked are "evil" (at fault).

Ukraine has never infringed on Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity before it was attacked. Therefor this war is entirely Russia's fault.

The world is mostly shades of gray. But this case it black and white.

replies(2): >>42182825 #>>42182849 #
62. esarbe ◴[] No.42182608{5}[source]
There's no actual evidence that Ukraine did it, lest alone solid proof.

Russia is a probable candidate.

replies(4): >>42182705 #>>42183620 #>>42183764 #>>42185580 #
63. matt-p ◴[] No.42182612{3}[source]
I think most reasonable people realise that was either the US or the UK.
64. usrusr ◴[] No.42182626{4}[source]
Some xenos appear to have few other goals in life than getting feared. It would almost appear impolite to not give them what they desire so much.
65. ◴[] No.42182705{6}[source]
66. eps ◴[] No.42182752{5}[source]
There's an outstanding German warrant for 3 Ukrainians in connection with the incident.

https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-explosions-germany-issues-...

replies(1): >>42184301 #
67. nbman102 ◴[] No.42182759{4}[source]
That is a very abbreviated history. There are two pipelines, NS-1 and NS-2, both of which have two pipes each. NS-1 was operational until a turbine had to be repaired in Canada. The bureaucratic process to allow the repair was arduous, but finally it got done and chancellor Scholz did a photo-op in front of the repaired turbine.

Then the Russians played coy and came up with counter-bureaucratic reasons why the repaired turbine could not be installed. Presumably to put pressure on Germany, which was afraid of the 2022/2023 winter at the time.

Then two pipes of NS-1 and one pipe of NS-2 were blown up. Since no gas was flowing at the time, Russia had no reason to blow up its bargaining chip. Ukraine or the U.S. did have a reason.

Russia also delivered gas to Austria through a pipeline that goes through Ukraine and for which Ukraine collected transit fees until this year. Russia didn't shut down or blow up that pipeline.

From the point of view of the U.S. and Ukraine it does not make sense to blow up the Austrian pipeline because Austria is neutral anyway, so just let Ukraine collect the transit fees.

Germany of course must be pressured to be the second largest financial and weapons supporter for Ukraine, so hey, let's blow up the pipeline of our "ally".

Apart from Hersh's "the U.S. did it" theory, the Wall Street Journal recently blamed it on Zalushny. No other theories have emerged, but rest assured that if there were a credible Russia theory the Western press would shout it from the rooftops.

Putin has offered multiple times to either open the remaining pipe of NS-2 or to route gas via Turkey:

https://www.dw.com/en/putin-offers-europe-gas-through-nord-s...

replies(2): >>42182912 #>>42184416 #
68. probably_wrong ◴[] No.42182787{4}[source]
While a false flag operation cannot be ruled out, I don't think the case is as clear-cut as you suggest.

> Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia.

I disagree: Russian gas was the one leverage Russia had over Germany. Blowing the pipeline ensured that Germany wouldn't be able to get out of the conflict quietly - "Germany still receiving Russian gas" would not receive as much condemnation as "Germany repairs Russian gas pipeline".

> Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.

True, but Ukraine doesn't have a legal right to sabotage the infrastructure of its allies. I live in Germany and I can tell you: that first winter was pretty bad for everyone, with plenty headlines about people who could no longer afford their heating costs. If it had been known that it was Ukraine's doing, popular support for the war would have sunk a lot.

replies(2): >>42184380 #>>42189622 #
69. ◴[] No.42182819{4}[source]
70. dotancohen ◴[] No.42182825{6}[source]
Are you aware of why NATO was founded? Are you aware that NATO expansion into Ukraine seemed very likely at the time of Russia's invasion?

I am neither Russian nor European, so I don't have any horse in this race. But Russia's concerns sure seen valid from the outside.

replies(5): >>42182939 #>>42183014 #>>42183033 #>>42183822 #>>42185778 #
71. nbman102 ◴[] No.42182826[source]
If this wasn't an accident, given the recent Biden escalation that allows ATACMS strikes in Kursk in could mean two things:

1) Russia hastily retaliated, which is out of character. You can accuse Russia of many things, but not of retaliating instantly (against the West, in Ukraine they probably do).

2) False flag in order to drum up pro-war sentiment in the West.

If Biden escalates in the last weeks of his presidency, presumably to make it more difficult for Trump to negotiate, why would Russia take the bait and escalate? It does not make any sense.

replies(1): >>42182920 #
72. smcl ◴[] No.42182834{6}[source]
I think you tried to be a bit too clever there in choosing one of the "big metal things" that you didn't know how to spell :-)
replies(1): >>42188917 #
73. ◴[] No.42182849{6}[source]
74. ◴[] No.42182912{5}[source]
75. numeric83 ◴[] No.42182920[source]
"Escalate"? Allowing Ukraine to use the weapons it has to strike back at an aggressor in order to mitigate or reduce said aggressors ability to continue attacking is ... "escalation"? I don't think so.

If anything artificial limits have been placed on Ukraine that are not placed on other nations (or in some cases proscribed terrorist organisations) purchasing or being "gifted" weapons. Whether those weapons are from the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, RoK, whoever.

replies(2): >>42183324 #>>42184245 #
76. castigatio ◴[] No.42182936{3}[source]
Do you not understand probability? Or are you just suffering from confirmation bias?
77. esarbe ◴[] No.42182939{7}[source]
Russia's "concerns" are not valid.

It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.

No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.

You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.

replies(1): >>42185129 #
78. vasco ◴[] No.42182948{6}[source]
I don't know what goes on to comment. I'm not there and I don't fool myself into thinking that I know geopolitics just because I read some articles. My comment was replying to someone who said the Russians are the war thirsty people of the world. It's a bit rich because, there's a bunch of other ongoing wars in the world and people aren't just "bad" or "good"
replies(2): >>42183799 #>>42187790 #
79. ◴[] No.42182949[source]
80. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42183014{7}[source]
Why do they seem valid?

How long has NATO been on russia's border? This is an important question. Please try to answer it.

replies(2): >>42186236 #>>42186912 #
81. db48x ◴[] No.42183033{7}[source]
The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...>
replies(2): >>42183876 #>>42185050 #
82. coretx ◴[] No.42183158{4}[source]
NATO countries don't or barely respond because subversion requires a response. Russia is constantly pulling low hanging fruit hoping for as much commotion, fear, etc. It's party of their destabilization and subversion tactics. This is why authorities are not loud, but calm & stoic. And it works, very few people around me are aware of the fact that Russia has blown up NATO ammunition depots, liquidated politicians and has spread bombs on mail flights. During WW2 the British had a great slogan: /Keep Calm and Carry On/. It actually helps the war effort, unlike public outcry, wild speculation & unrest.
replies(2): >>42185612 #>>42185832 #
83. air3y ◴[] No.42183324{3}[source]
Yes. Weapons hitting places deep inside Russia that haven't been hit before is escalation. Whether one favors the act or not isn't how a step is considered as escalation. Now the Russians might or might not take steps that the other side considers escalation.
replies(1): >>42183434 #
84. numeric83 ◴[] No.42183434{4}[source]
Ukraine has been hitting targets "deep" inside Russia for a long time now - further than ATACMS or the export Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG can reach. Whether Ukraine use their own weapons or those purchased/gifted from others seems irrelevant. This is Russia saying "we can hit you with weapons provided by other nations, but you cannot be allowed to hit us likewise" - it's pathetic.

As for what Russia may do, they've been told publicly and privately by multiple nations: from the U.S., UK, and France, even China and India to wind their necks in with regard any nuclear escalation. However, they are very adept at asymmetric responses, and Putin has already said he would consider arming groups with anti-"western" sympathies - he probably already has.

replies(1): >>42185028 #
85. calmoo ◴[] No.42183620{6}[source]
There is some pretty compelling evidence that it was Ukraine. The CIA even tipped Germany off about the potential saboteurs

https://archive.is/dPdoX

replies(1): >>42183699 #
86. esarbe ◴[] No.42183699{7}[source]
What exactly is the evidence there? I read the article and all I see is hearsay.

German investigations found that the Andromeda trail leads to Russia[0].

[0] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/internationales/nord-stream-spur...

replies(2): >>42185371 #>>42185479 #
87. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.42183764{6}[source]
The Dutch military intelligence agency MIVD had infiltrants in Ukraine after MH-17 of a plot to blow up the Nord Stream, they tipped off the CIA, who in turn warned Ukraine not to do it, three months before it happened; source [0], translation [1].

Germany has issued an arrest warrant for a Ukranian national [2] who along with two accomplices was on board the yacht Andromeda, which was located at the blast site days before the blast and on which traces of the same explosive was found as used on the pipelines, as well as DNA evidence.

I suppose it's not "actual evidence Ukraine did it", but it's more than enough evidence to make a Ukranian national that since fled back to Ukraine a suspect.

[0] https://nos.nl/artikel/2478770-vs-waarschuwde-oekraine-nord-... [1] https://nos-nl.translate.goog/artikel/2478770-vs-waarschuwde... [2] https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-explosions-germany-issues-...

replies(1): >>42184282 #
88. chikere232 ◴[] No.42183787{6}[source]
Not wanting to be invaded isn't warmongering, except in the eyes of the invader
89. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.42183799{7}[source]
Objective facts though: Russia invaded Ukraine, in 2014 and 2022. There was no formal declaration of war. There were widespread and indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

Which parts of those are "good" in your opinion? Do you believe Russia's "denazification" claim?

There are no international laws that legitimized Russia's invasion of Ukraine. If Ukraine was in violation of something, there's procedures in place to declare war legitimately - but before that there's the nonviolent approach, which Russia skipped.

replies(1): >>42184158 #
90. Cthulhu_ ◴[] No.42183822{7}[source]
NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia, if it comes to pass. NATO has never and will never be an aggressor, see article 1 as someone pointed out.

If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded.

How many countries has NATO invaded?

replies(2): >>42183885 #>>42185106 #
91. aa-jv ◴[] No.42183833{4}[source]
>Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia.

Nonsense. Biden had a great deal of incentive to destroy that pipeline.

replies(2): >>42184190 #>>42185712 #
92. aa-jv ◴[] No.42183876{8}[source]
Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not?

No, you don't.

And neither do the Russians.

So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?

replies(2): >>42185568 #>>42188617 #
93. SiempreViernes ◴[] No.42183885{8}[source]
> NATO has never and will never be an aggressor

Not to defend the regime in power then (nor now!), but if you ask Serbia they might offer some other lived experiences on how consensual Operation Allied Force was.

replies(1): >>42185379 #
94. pelasaco ◴[] No.42183897{4}[source]
> Of course, Russians used false flag as usual, to blame Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.

This is completely wrong. It involved German/Russian infrastructure, and if confirmed, it would rank as the worst terrorist act in the history of the FRG (Germany) since the Munich Olympic Games. In fact, it could, should, or would lead to the activation of Article 5, as one of NATO's members was attacked.

BTW from the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

" In June 2024 German authorities issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national suspected of the sabotage.[13] "

This (in German) shed even more lights on that https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ukraine/roman-tscherwins...

replies(2): >>42184339 #>>42190703 #
95. pelasaco ◴[] No.42184032{7}[source]
> Like, Russia is actually 'doing the bad things'.

Yes, Russia is doing bad things.. But do we really need or want a third World War because of it? It’s not Ukraine’s fault that Russia invaded, but Ukraine bears responsibility for having been so corrupt over the past 20 years and for being irresponsible given its proximity to Russia. We still don’t know how much of the aid sent to Ukraine is being lost to corruption... So I am not willing to fight this War.

replies(2): >>42184233 #>>42186540 #
96. pelasaco ◴[] No.42184098{4}[source]
I’m not sure that no one wants a war. I can see some groups profiting from it.. I see some politicians being quite blunt about it—some in Germany, for instance, who are well-known lobbyists for the defense industry. Biden’s decision to allow the use of long-range weapons seems like a tactical political move designed to make Trump’s life significantly harder from day one. It feels irresponsible, as it appears that war is being used both to weaken the opposition and to enrich the defense industry.
replies(2): >>42185489 #>>42187282 #
97. vasco ◴[] No.42184158{8}[source]
No parts of the war are good - I didn't make any claims about the Russian war, I don't know what caused it or why it's going on, and I don't like wars. I don't believe most claims by either side, I doubt there's advantage in revealing the real reasons by either side - the articles we read are to craft an opinion either to support one side or the other and I don't think it's that simple - that's my whole point. I don't need to think a war is legitimate to have a reaction to someone saying there's one country with warmonger people and one country without. In general I think it's normal to side with the invaded party and I'm personally inclined to support that side - but it doesn't mean I tell myself I'm making some informed decision.
replies(1): >>42185520 #
98. oneshtein ◴[] No.42184190{5}[source]
LOL Biden has no balls to do that.
replies(1): >>42202537 #
99. amanaplanacanal ◴[] No.42184233{8}[source]
You should definitely stay home then. Other people are doing the fighting for you.
replies(1): >>42184867 #
100. scrps ◴[] No.42184245{3}[source]
There are sadly a lot of Chamberlains these days with the wool pulled over their eyes.
101. oneshtein ◴[] No.42184282{7}[source]
> The two other suspects, a married couple who do not have warrants issued in their names, have denied knowing Z. and said that they were on vacation in Bulgaria when the attack took place.

:-/

So, one diver moved and installed 500kg of explosives in 4 places in front of a married couple?

replies(1): >>42185549 #
102. oneshtein ◴[] No.42184301{6}[source]
> The two other suspects, a married couple who do not have warrants issued in their names, have denied knowing Z. and said that they were on vacation in Bulgaria when the attack took place.
103. oneshtein ◴[] No.42184339{5}[source]
So, this is one man, who bought, moved, and then installed 500kg of explosives in 4 places in front of a married couple, right?
replies(1): >>42185561 #
104. oneshtein ◴[] No.42184380{5}[source]
European countries demand US$20 billion for undelivered gas from Russia[1].

Maybe, $20 billion is pocket money for you, but it's big money for Russia. A false flag operation is much much cheaper.

[1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/european-countries-demand-us-...

105. oneshtein ◴[] No.42184416{5}[source]
Russia had $20 billion reasons to blow up their gas pipelines and blame Ukraine for that.
replies(1): >>42185916 #
106. limit499karma ◴[] No.42184526{6}[source]
Maybe he is an Israeli.
107. pelasaco ◴[] No.42184867{9}[source]
For me? Definitely not for me. But my country investing my pension, health infrastructure, education system to support their civilians. Even you and all other Ukraine that spend the day online here, are being paid by us. Still, no reason to Europe to go to war for Ukraine, but instead invest our military budget in our NATO partners and preparing to defend them.
replies(1): >>42187596 #
108. air3y ◴[] No.42185028{5}[source]
Earlier hits were using Ukrainian drones, while the Atacms are reported as needing to be programmed by US military to hit the targets. So while it is Ukraine that supposedly fires them, it is the americans who will reportedly get them to their intended targets. I don't think there is any moral debate in Ukraine hitting Russia with missiles. After all it is a war fought by Russia against an Ukraine which has Nato proxy support. But it is an escalation nevertheless.

It is now up to Russia on how to respond. And as you noted, one scenario being talked about, at least in social media, is some groups houthis, hezbollah or others getting Russian missiles and those being fired at western targets, ships or others. And I assume it would be Russian military who would control the targetting in that case depending on the missiles used. Or the Russians don't go for direct escalation with the intent of not jeopardizing the chances of Trump ending support to Ukraine in few months from now.

But either way Russia's deterrence against Nato has been challenged yet again, and the chances of escalations and counter-escalations going out of hand remains a more nearer scary possibility in the unfolding scenario in process.

replies(1): >>42185635 #
109. dotancohen ◴[] No.42185050{8}[source]
Yes, and Russia had similar "we won't be the first to be aggressive" language for many years as well. You can see that with new leadership comes new interpretations of when "peaceful means" are no longer sufficient.

From Russia's perspective, NATO has been infringing on both Russia's sphere of influence and on her buffer states. Russia has _twice_ been invaded by the Europeans, she hasn't forgotten that. And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.

Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?

replies(2): >>42185403 #>>42185576 #
110. dotancohen ◴[] No.42185106{8}[source]

  > NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia
Exactly. Russia views NATO as an anti-Russian entity. And both sides have phrases that amount roughly to "the best defense is an effective offense".

Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack? And especially if they've already invaded your property twice (France and Germany both invaded Russia).

replies(5): >>42185370 #>>42185545 #>>42185569 #>>42185605 #>>42187086 #
111. dotancohen ◴[] No.42185129{8}[source]

  > Russia's "concerns" are not valid.
Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war.

  > It's not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that's entirely Ukraine's decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.
NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that "Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance" and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn't even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine.

> No nation has extra-territorial security interests that it needs to defend by attacking a neutral, peaceful and friendly neighbor.

Then you know nothing of US doctrine. The Central Americans will tell you how the US will even invade just to lower the price of bananas - no joke.

  > You have been fooled into defending imperialism. Or worse; you're consciously defending imperialism.
No, I really don't have a side in this. I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it. I also understand the Western viewpoint as well, but there's no need to defend it in present company, we all agree about NATO, European, and US positions on the matter.
replies(4): >>42185429 #>>42185485 #>>42185524 #>>42187062 #
112. mopsi ◴[] No.42185370{9}[source]
What weapons? Cold War era stockpiles have been dismantled in Europe and nothing has been installed in countries that have joined since the Cold War.
113. ◴[] No.42185371{8}[source]
114. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42185379{9}[source]
Why did NATO bomb Serbia?
replies(1): >>42189418 #
115. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42185403{9}[source]
> And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.

I have already asked you in another comment to tell me how long NATO has been literally on Russia’s border.

Why are you dodging the question?

replies(1): >>42186775 #
116. mopsi ◴[] No.42185429{9}[source]
This is not "Russia's viewpoint", but a narrative to advance their ambition of enslaving again the roughly 100 million people who became free after the USSR collapsed.

The Russian viewpoint is that Eastern Europe would be much easier to conquer if they were internationally isolated and could be picked off one by one like in the 1940s. The current war against Ukraine is an excellent example of this; international cooperation is a leading reason for the failure of the invasion. All the complaints about NATO lead back to the fact that for Russia it elevates the cost of invading Eastern Europe. Without NATO, they would face only limited conventional forces in Poland. With NATO, an attack on Poland go as far as activating American carrier groups or even a nuclear response.

117. gruez ◴[] No.42185479{8}[source]
The "investigations" you reference were by German media, whereas the wsj article was allegedly from German authorities. Moreover, while you accuse the wsj article as "hearsay", the same is true for the tagesspiegel you linked. The crux of that article's claim is that the company that rented the yacht had Crimean owners with ties to Russia, but no proof was presented. We're asked to trust the journalists on that, just as we're asked to trust the wsj journalists on the facts of the German authorities' investigation.
118. dragonwriter ◴[] No.42185485{9}[source]
> > It’s not even that there was absolutely no active process of joining NATO when Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2014 and started all this. No; if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that’s entirely Ukraine’s decision. Russia has no say in it. Ukraine is sovereign and can join any military alliance it wants. Just as Russia is free to do so.

> NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit that “Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance” and reiterated that statement in the 2021 Brussels Summit. I didn’t even remember those details, it was easy to find with google and a vague idea that NATO had shown interest in Ukraine.

A little bit more competent Googling would fill in the context you’ve clearly missed:

(1) The 2008 statement was a way of mollifying Ukraine after acceding to Russia’s demand that Ukraine and Georgia be denied NATO Membership Action Plans at the 2008 summit. (Russia responded, by the way, to this accession to their demands by invading Georgia. Might have done the same to the Ukraine soon after, except by the time they were at a stable point with Georgia, they’d already managed to get a Russia-friendly government in Ukraine.)

(2) Ukraine publicly abandoned any interest in a foreign military alliance between the 2008 summit and the 2014 invasion by Russia.

(3) Ukraine abandoned its neutrality stance and restarted attempts to join NATO only after the 2014 invasion.

(4) The 2021 statement was, again, a way of putting a nice face for Ukraine on NATO again rejecting Ukraine’s attempts to join in the near term.

119. kjkjadksj ◴[] No.42185489{5}[source]
A war in europe is not going to be profitable squared against the damage it will do to the global economy. Thats why the middle eastern wars were attractive for American coalition members. Defense contractors profit. You can demo new tech and tactics. And whatever damage you do in that corner of the world won’t really impact anything at home.
120. wbl ◴[] No.42185498{5}[source]
They murdered an entire town. Well several. Raped and tortured those they didn't kill. Kidnap children to Russianize them. Torture and kill POWs. The only difference between them and the Germans is that they haven't carried out industrial slaughter of Jews.
replies(1): >>42188641 #
121. kjkjadksj ◴[] No.42185520{9}[source]
With this rigid logic you might as well not trust anything you can’t observe first hand yourself.
replies(1): >>42193582 #
122. aguaviva ◴[] No.42185524{9}[source]
Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war.

Provided one accepts that those concerns are valid.

And that its stated "concerns" were in fact its actual reasons for starting the war.

But there is no compelling logical basis for us to accept either of these premises.

I don't have time to fully dissect what you're saying about the NATO issue -- other than that you are leaving out some very important details which for some reason were not presented to you in whatever sources you are reading from. (Which is a polite way of telling you: your sources are apparently misinformed, or worse).

But the main point is: none of the NATO stuff ever amounted to an actual physical threat against the Russian state, or otherwise any rational reason for Russia's regime to start a war.

More to the point, it wasn't the real reason it chose to the start the war. It's just something it says, for internal and external propaganda purposes.

So no - we don't have to "accept that Russia's concerns are valid".

123. wbl ◴[] No.42185545{9}[source]
Russia signed treaty after treaty saying countries can make their own alliances. NATO has not put nukes eastward or any permeant allied presence, other than the armies of the allied states themselves in the region.

Russia refused to withdraw from Moldova to implement CFE II. This is not the action of a state worried that it's disadvantage in conventional arms will lead to invasion.

124. gruez ◴[] No.42185549{8}[source]
>So, one diver moved and installed 500kg of explosives in 4 places in front of a married couple?

Are you taking the married couples' claims at face value? The article mentions two divers, not one.

125. gruez ◴[] No.42185561{6}[source]
>in front of a married couple

Is this supposed to imply the story is implausible because the couple wasn't in on the plot and would rat the third guy out? If so, all 3 are suspects and presumably are in on the plot, so this argument falls flat on its face.

replies(1): >>42186709 #
126. mopsi ◴[] No.42185568{9}[source]
What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
replies(1): >>42202512 #
127. kjkjadksj ◴[] No.42185569{9}[source]
You act like there aren’t a hundred missiles in Montana trained at russian targets for the past 70 years. Should russia invade montana?
replies(1): >>42186745 #
128. aguaviva ◴[] No.42185576{9}[source]
Need I remind you how the US responded when the USSR set up missile positions in Cuba?

We can safely say "no", as the US never set up missile positions in Ukraine, or had any plan to.

There's simply no analogy between the two situations.

replies(1): >>42187400 #
129. gruez ◴[] No.42185580{6}[source]
Why is "solid proof" required for the claim that Ukrainian nationals did it, but "probable candidate" suffices for Russia?
replies(1): >>42187186 #
130. aguaviva ◴[] No.42185605{9}[source]
Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack?

Except that never happened in Ukraine, or in any of the other NATO countries close to Russia.

You know that, right?

replies(1): >>42186736 #
131. alt227 ◴[] No.42185612{5}[source]
> Russia has blown up NATO ammunition depots

Can you give a link to some information on this please?

replies(1): >>42186090 #
132. wbl ◴[] No.42185635{6}[source]
We need to make clear we have the cards. Russia invited us to slaughter the forces sent in in 2014 by making them deniable. They backed down when Turkey downed one of their jets. The instant they feel real force they back down.
133. gruez ◴[] No.42185696{3}[source]
Yeah but in this case, we don't know whether the guy in question actually got shot, only that he died. In that case it's premature to assume "this is murder".
replies(1): >>42186078 #
134. aguaviva ◴[] No.42185712{5}[source]
Biden had a great deal of incentive to destroy that pipeline.

But far too many more obvious counterincentives.

Unlike the Ukrainians, NATO/US were smart enough to see that blowing up NS2 would be hugely stupid, providing precisely zero strategic advantage while simply provoking Russia to respond assymetrically (in exactly the same way as it is apparently doing right now). In addition to the huge methane release.

So if anything, the standpoint of "incentives" points squarely in the opposite direction (that is, against the idea that the US/NATO must have done it).

replies(1): >>42202531 #
135. aguaviva ◴[] No.42185778{7}[source]
Are you aware that NATO expansion into Ukraine seemed very likely at the time of Russia's invasion?

Actually it was effectively impossible, as NATO's bylaws prevent the admission of states with active border conflicts. This is most likely (a large part of) why Putin invaded both Georgia and Ukraine -- to create permanent border conflicts, to prevent them from becoming NATO states.

So in fact there was no imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO state at the time of the 2022 invasion. Which makes perfect sense, as it was never the reason Putin chose to launch the full-scale invasion, anyway.

replies(3): >>42186187 #>>42187111 #>>42187438 #
136. holoduke ◴[] No.42185832{5}[source]
For the non westerns the west is constantly bribing and threatening other nations to comply with their economic expansion drift. In the end we are all tribal nations. And even the west isntva tiny bit better than others. Unfortunately propoganda at all sides make people sticking to one side, condemning the other.
replies(1): >>42187160 #
137. holoduke ◴[] No.42185916{6}[source]
You mean vice versa i assume.
138. ajuc ◴[] No.42186078{4}[source]
Chinese ship starting from Russian port went to sea, dropped the anchor just before the cables, dragged it over the cables, went away.

Haven't reported anything.

Declined requests to explain themselves.

Sorry but it's bullshit.

139. actionfromafar ◴[] No.42186090{6}[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Vrb%C4%9Btice_ammunition_...
140. dmpk2k ◴[] No.42186187{8}[source]
One thing I've learned watching politicians the past few decades is that laws are guidelines. If the political will exists, politicians will find a way.
141. pasc1878 ◴[] No.42186236{8}[source]
4 April 1949 the day NATO was founded.
142. FrustratedMonky ◴[] No.42186540{8}[source]
What would Reagan have said to this?

"USSR, why bother pushing back, not my problem, can't I just go to the mall and hang out?"

replies(1): >>42186887 #
143. oneshtein ◴[] No.42186709{7}[source]
Only one man is suspect, a married couple is not.
replies(1): >>42186929 #
144. m4rtink ◴[] No.42186711{4}[source]
Yep, they can and they did:

https://english.defensie.nl/downloads/publications/2024/09/2...

Or the Netherlands section here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukra...

350+ APCs, 150+ MBTs, Patriot bateries, SPGs, F16s - I'm sure those on the receiving end do think that their Donbas proxies could have been a bit less trigger happy when the loaned them that Buk AA system back in 2014.

Those 298 inoccent victims, 193 of them citizens of Netherlands will be avenged many times over.

145. dotancohen ◴[] No.42186736{10}[source]
I'm showing you the Russian perspective. I don't care one way or the other.
replies(3): >>42186899 #>>42187095 #>>42188540 #
146. dotancohen ◴[] No.42186745{10}[source]
Is Montana right up on Russia's border, severely limiting time to respond in case of launch?
replies(1): >>42186861 #
147. dotancohen ◴[] No.42186775{10}[source]
I'm not dodging questions. I'm demonstrating the Russian perspective. I don't care one way or the other.

In any case, I'm not on HN constantly. Maybe once every hour or so I'll take a look. Aggressiveness and impatience are not appreciated on HN, if I get around to answering you I will. And maybe not if I don't feel that _I_ have something to learn from the conversation. I'm not here promoting some dogma, and I don't have to answer your questions.

replies(2): >>42186839 #>>42186910 #
148. wedesoft ◴[] No.42186809[source]
There has been an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian diver. https://www.heise.de/en/news/Nord-Stream-Arrest-warrant-for-...
149. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42186839{11}[source]
For. How. Long. Has. NATO. Been. On. Russia’s. Border.

Again, you are dodging the question.

Either you will say they aren’t, in service of your argument that russia invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO from coming up to their border, in which case you would be wrong since NATO has shared a border with russia in Europe for at least the past 24 years.

Or, you will say at least the past 24 years, which undermines your argument that russia only invaded Ukraine to prevent NATO appearing at their immediate borders, since they were already there. For at least the past 24 years.

We can do this all day.

I’ve got another question for you. Almost certainly you will dodge it, because it is blindingly obvious that you are not impartial as you pretend to be, and that you have a strong bias for the Putin regime and its illegal war and genocide, but let’s go through the motions anyway.

How did the Moskva sink?

replies(1): >>42189145 #
150. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42186861{11}[source]
So why hasn’t russia invaded Poland?
151. pelasaco ◴[] No.42186887{9}[source]
That's not how it goes. We are supporting Ukraine in a level that nobody does. Germany is investing the pension from everyone under 45 years old, education and health system, just to support ukraine. All Ukraine online warriors here in Hackernews, are here being support financially by us. It doesn't mean however we should go to War for it. The online warriors here aren't there too, but here in Germany, "figthing online" with +1 or -1...
replies(1): >>42187281 #
152. aguaviva ◴[] No.42186899{11}[source]
Funny, it definitely seemed as if you were presenting it as your own.
153. aguaviva ◴[] No.42186910{11}[source]
I'm not dodging questions.

You were absolutely, unequivocally were dodging the commenter's question.

I don't care one way or the other.

If you plainly don't care, and won't answer questions, and since you obviously don't invest the time to keep even basic tabs on the actual situation on the ground anyway -- then it's extremely difficult to see why you're bothering to engage at all, here. It looks like you're just out to stir the pot, basically.

replies(1): >>42201610 #
154. dragonwriter ◴[] No.42186912{8}[source]
NATO has been on both Russia’s western (land) border and eastern (sea) border since it was founded in 1949.
155. gruez ◴[] No.42186929{8}[source]
Says who? The DW article says otherwise.

>The two other suspects, a married couple who do not have warrants issued in their names, have denied knowing Z. and said that they were on vacation in Bulgaria when the attack took place.

156. esarbe ◴[] No.42187062{9}[source]
> Dismissing Russia's concerns is exactly what led to this war.

No. Russia invading a peaceful, friendly and neutral neighbor with unmarked military units is what lead to this war.

> NATO stated in the 2008 Bucharest Summit

FR, ES and DE made it clear that Ukraine would not be a candidate for NATO and nothing came of it. The first step in admitting a nation into NATO is a Membership Action Plan (MAP) - there never was a such for Ukraine. NATO membership for Ukraine was dead in the water in 2014, when Russia heinously attacked with unmarked military units.

But that is besides the point, really; Ukraine is sovereign. It is a sovereign nation that can itself decide which alliances to join. Ukraine is not beholden to Russia and Russia doesn't get a say in Ukrainian politics. Russia is not the Soviet Union and Ukraine is not the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

> Then you know nothing of US doctrine.

Ah, yes. The "this one over there is a murderer too" defense. You're still defending imperialism, you're just defending imperialism with more imperialism.

> I'm simply presenting Russia's viewpoint as I understand it.

Russia's viewpoint is that Ukraine has no right so sovereignty. That's in direct violation with multiple treaties with Ukraine that Russia has signed.

Russia does not want an independent Ukraine. That's why they have been attacking Ukraine for 10 years now, first clandestine and then ever more openly. That's why they have been bombing civilians, that's why the formally annexed Ukrainian territory, that's why they will not grant peace to their neighbor.

Because without Ukraine, there can be no Russian Empire.

157. esarbe ◴[] No.42187086{9}[source]
Ukraine was not a NATO member when Russia attacked it in February 2014, not was there a membership action plan to get Ukraine into NATO.

This has nothing to do with NATO. Only with Russian imperialism.

158. esarbe ◴[] No.42187095{11}[source]
That's not the Russian "perspective", that's just a Russian propaganda lie.

The actual Russian perspective is "Let's quickly grab Ukraine before they completely turn towards Europe, otherwise Russia cannot be an empire again."

replies(1): >>42188606 #
159. esarbe ◴[] No.42187111{8}[source]
The war started in 2014. There was even less imminent possibility of Ukraine becoming a NATO member back then, when Putin first sent unmarked military units to attack Ukraine.
replies(1): >>42187260 #
160. Suppafly ◴[] No.42187149[source]
>I don't understand. That's how I'd expect most accidents to happen. Someone decides to anchor too close to an undersea cable, the anchor fails to hold and the drifting ship drags the anchor over the cable damaging it.

In most of these cases, it's Russian ships dropping their anchors in areas where the cables are known to be and then driving around in circles until they snag and break it. It's not even slightly plausible that they'd be doing it accidentally.

161. esarbe ◴[] No.42187186{7}[source]
To attribute culpability, you need solid proof. I'm not saying that Russia did it - simply that there's enough evidence that Russia had means, motive and opportunity - which makes it a probable candidate.
162. aguaviva ◴[] No.42187260{9}[source]
The war started in 2014.

That's known, and already implicit in what I said.

163. FrustratedMonky ◴[] No.42187281{10}[source]
Guess I was thinking in terms of 'support'.

During the Cold War, the US and Russia were not 'At War'. But US did financial support a ton of countries, with a lot of money.

So why not do that now? Still fighting Russia. Still not 'head to head', but with Proxies.

This seems like arguing to stop supporting our Proxy and let Russia take them. But there is still an argument to not give up.

Lets say Russia wins, and re-integrates Ukraine.

Now what does the world look like in 20 years when Russia is eye-balling Poland?

replies(1): >>42188621 #
164. aftbit ◴[] No.42187282{5}[source]
>Biden’s decision to allow the use of long-range weapons seems like a tactical political move designed to make Trump’s life significantly harder from day one.

I have a different take on this, basically parroting Perun on YouTube. The lame duck period is the perfect time for escalatory steps, as the Russians always have the option of waiting until the new administration comes into office rather than responding aggressively. Trump will be free to re-impose whichever restrictions he wants, but he'll be starting from a stronger position. He'll have the "stop UA use of long-range weapons" bargaining chip, _and_ he'll be able to relatively costlessly blame Biden for the "bad decision" of allowing them.

165. holowoodman ◴[] No.42187400{10}[source]
Well, there was the Cuba missile equivalent of stationing missiles in Turkey. Which, seemingly as part of the negotiation to end the crisis, were removed from Turkey afterwards.
166. holowoodman ◴[] No.42187438{8}[source]
West Germany joined NATO during an effective border conflict about whether it should actually be just Germany, reunified with the eastern parts. However, that conflict never actually was a war, just part of the "cold war".
167. mopsi ◴[] No.42187596{10}[source]
If you ask European military leaders where we should invest and how we should prepare, they'll tell you that strong support of Ukraine is one of the best investments into European defense that you could make at the moment. They calculate that it's better to stop Russia in Ukraine than to face Russia (with additional resources from fully occupied Ukraine) in Poland or elsewhere.

Military leaders are pragmatic people and this is a pragmatic approach. We have a problem. We see that the problem has grown in time and will grow further if ignored. So it's better to deal with the problem now rather than waste valuable time and face an even larger problem in 5 to 8 years.

replies(1): >>42188553 #
168. holoduke ◴[] No.42187670{7}[source]
I guess its time for some lessons of the history of Finland. Remind you of the collaboration with Nazi Germany. Also the forced removal of half a million people in Karelia. Treatment of native Sami people. discrimination and murder of many of those. Nothing different than any other country. Don't fool yourself in thinking you belong to the good guys. Its the concequence of propaganda.
replies(2): >>42188185 #>>42188317 #
169. peutetre ◴[] No.42187790{7}[source]
> I don't know what goes on to comment.

And yet you are commenting. Ignorance and a lack of curiosity are not compelling arguments.

Maybe it's time to grow up and start paying attention.

170. ajuc ◴[] No.42188185{8}[source]
> Remind you of the collaboration with Nazi Germany.

Let me quote Wikipedia:

After invading Poland, the Soviet Union sent ultimatums to the Baltic countries, where it demanded military bases on their soil. The Baltic states accepted Soviet demands, and lost their independence in the summer of 1940. In October 1939, the Soviet Union sent a similar request to Finland, but the Finns refused these demands. [1]

At that point Finland was neutral, but Soviet Union had a treaty with Nazi Germany and invaded Poland together (and also split the whole Eastern Europe between themselves in secret protocol of Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. See [2]

After the ultimatum Finland refused, Soviet Russia invaded, got repelled, and only THEN Finland allied with Nazi Germany.

> Nothing different than any other country.

One country invaded other. The other country defended itself. These are objectively not alike. Stop repeating russian propaganda. There is objective truth and it's not that hard to know it. People who try to make it fuzzy do it because they know it's not painting them in a good light.

Remember how Russia was pretending situation in Ukraine in 2014 is "complicated", and Ukrainians are "nazis" and these "green men" are just Ukrainian separatists, and westerners can't really know what's going on. They also pushed "both sides are bad, let's just ignore it" - and it worked back then. Thousands of people died because of useful idiots believing these lies. Nowadays Russia openly admits it was their army pretending to be Ukrainians.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Finland#Finland_in_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...

171. fsloth ◴[] No.42188317{8}[source]
Russian propaganda is all about claiming nobody has any values, and using hand picked historical errors and misattribution evidence of this. The intent is to sow doubt.

I see you are repeating the favourite tropes while avoiding the point - a colonizer attempting to strike down again at an old victim.

The point is not about not making mistakes. Everybody does those. They key thing about being among the good guys is a) recognizing those mistakes and b) not intentionally repeating them. Also not treating your own citizens as worthless pieces of flesh to throw in to the meatgrinder is a clear ”good guy bad guy” indicator if we want to use low brow moral qualifiers.

I guess you conveniently forgot to mention that Finland joined Germany only because Stalin was about to roll over Finland and nobody else was willing to oppose the invasion. The key thing what displays the character of Finland as country, is that Finland never let Germany take our jewish population. The only thing that made Germany truly evil was the holocaust. Finland did not participate in the holocaust. Jewish men served in the Finnish armed forces. When Germans wanted to implement their holocaust in Finland, the finns said basically ”piss off”.

You are quite right on the historical treatment of Sami. You forget to mention that Sami rights as a minority are now quite well protected, and we feel quite bad of this historical ill trearment.

This is in contrast with Russian values, for example, where the state not only refuses to admit the historical mistakes made, genocide, but happily sends hundreds of thousands of men to a pointless meat grinder. This is what true evil looks like. One needs to be a very special kind of fool not to see state institutions clearly being ”better” or ”worse” and Russia being of the very worst kind. The propaganda attempt you posted tries to argue in an off-hand manner that Russia can’t be the worst since all are equally bad. The claim is false. There is a clear gradient of human quality in state institutions and the Russian state is objectively at the worse end of the spectrum, and sliding ever lower sadly.

172. stoperaticless ◴[] No.42188540{11}[source]
I guess it’s one way to frame it. The other could be:

Somebody is refusing to pay protection money and is forming a “neighbourhood watch”. We need to make example of them.

173. pelasaco ◴[] No.42188553{11}[source]
> Military leaders are pragmatic people and this is a pragmatic approach.

Military leaders are politicians. I am in the Military. The official position, is inline with what the political leaders want. Internally, the same Military leaders disagree with the politicians. Internally all say the same: There is no accountability and responsibility in Ukraine. Better is to concentrate our resources where matters: NATO. Ukraine is necessary strategically to consume Russian men, artillery, etc.. That's the military opinion that we hear internally.

replies(1): >>42188639 #
174. fsloth ◴[] No.42188606{12}[source]
Bravo sir, this is Alexander cutting the knot of muddled relativism.

It may be strange to modern western minds but Russians still consider their imperial project as wholesome, good and nearly sacred. To get into the correct mindstate, you can read for example how Churchill venerated the British empire. The Russians hold this same veneration to their imperial project today. They also know western audience probably would not appreciate this reasoning so they need to invent laughable excuses like ”we were afraid of NATO expansion” that clueless western commentators happily repeat as the foundational reason.

175. stoperaticless ◴[] No.42188617{9}[source]
What does it mean to be “nuclear tipped”?

As in uses depleted uranium (because of density characteristics) or radioactive waste stuff just for being radioactive?

(Obviously mass of tomahawk is too low for any chain nuclear reaction)

replies(1): >>42202506 #
176. pelasaco ◴[] No.42188621{11}[source]
> Lets say Russia wins, and re-integrates Ukraine.

It won't happen. If you think so then, you are not well informed about this topic. Russia has no manpower to "re-integrate" the whole Ukraine. Ukraine will always exist, but for the next years, maybe not as big as in 2014. Ukraine can still prepare itself to take the lost area back in the future. That's up to Ukraine, not to Europe.

Said that, one possibility, for now, which is part of the negotiations is Russia keep the conquered land, Ukraine joins EU/NATO. Realistically, it would be Ukraine joins EU and US won't block Ukraine applying to NATO.

> Now what does the world look like in 20 years when Russia is eye-balling Poland?

Poland, other than Ukraine, isn't one of the most corrupt countries in the World, and did their home-work. Beside it, other than Ukraine, Poland is NATO.

177. mopsi ◴[] No.42188639{12}[source]
> Military leaders are politicians. I am in the Military. The official position, is inline with what the political leaders want.

That's not the case in countries bordering Russia, starting from Finland and heading south, where military leaders take a lot of pride in being constitutionally independent like supreme court judges. Politicians would very much prefer to hide behind NATO guarantees and pretent that the risk does not exist and that the Americans would come to save us (without specifying any details), whereas military assessments are much more calculated and take into account hard facts like redeployment speed of a brigade or daily ammo expenditure. Assessments from military circles have so far been consistently the closest to how events have actually unfolded.

They case they are presenting is a no-brainer. It is by all measures significantly cheaper - by orders of magnitude - to support Ukraine in halting Russians in Eastern Ukraine than to fight invaders on our home turf.

replies(1): >>42188913 #
178. pelasaco ◴[] No.42188641{6}[source]
And now Germans are paying Ukraine bills. History is much more complicated than we think..
179. stoperaticless ◴[] No.42188753{5}[source]
> I wish I lived in a world where it's so easy to know who is good and who is evil

War and killings turn up the contrast, converting shades of gray to black and white, people to friends and enemies.

I rather would live in peacetime, where it’s less obvious who is good and who is bad.

180. pelasaco ◴[] No.42188913{13}[source]
Exactly. They need Ukraine to keep Russia busy. Other than people try to convince us, Men matter. Every single russian soldier that dies, fighting in Ukraine, is one less potential barbarian in their border, that's all truth, but people should understand, it's not about saving Ukraine, but about protecting themselves.
replies(1): >>42189710 #
181. jpc0 ◴[] No.42188917{7}[source]
Generally misspellings like this kind of proves the point...

The comment means nothing, neither mine nor the one I commented on so I won't even bother looking up the spelling.

It's more important to understand why the comment is there.

The GP asked what boat, parent effectively said "a boat" which doesn't answer the question. My comment was one of the least likely options, but hey I could have said sailboat...

Not an excuse either but realistically I on a daily basis speak two languages and often interact with people who can barely speak one of those two so I have some basic understanding of a third... Sometimes I can't remember which one spelling rules come from. Not an excuse, it's easy enough to look it up but just context.

182. Sabinus ◴[] No.42189114{8}[source]
I'm not interested in participating in your 'whatabout those evil European colonisers'. Pointing to historical colonies and injustice to excuse worse from Russia now isn't adding to the conversation.
replies(1): >>42192018 #
183. dotancohen ◴[] No.42189145{12}[source]
Some other guy already answered you on your post with the original question: "4 April 1949 the day NATO was founded"

  > How did the Moskva sink?
Didn't the Ukrainians shoot it with either an anti-ship missile or a drone jetski? Is this some test to see "what side I'm on"? I frankly don't care - like I said I was demonstrating the other side of the coin. But I see that was extremely offensive to you. I'm neither European nor Russian, I really don't care who's right. But I do listen to both sides of the story.
replies(1): >>42190768 #
184. SiempreViernes ◴[] No.42189418{10}[source]
It was not because Serbia invaded a NATO country, if that's what you were asking.

Thought of course you knew that already since you obviously know what the operation was called, a fact basically nobody today knows (without looking it up).

replies(2): >>42189631 #>>42190734 #
185. deanCommie ◴[] No.42189622{5}[source]
I wish people took this incident to realize that Germany should be investing in energy independence, the way France had.
replies(1): >>42190690 #
186. deanCommie ◴[] No.42189631{11}[source]
It was to stop a genocide.

Just because they weren't "defending a NATO member" doesn't mean that the operation was "offensive".

187. mopsi ◴[] No.42189710{14}[source]
But that's what military leaders are saying too: by giving Ukraine better weapons to defend their homes, we hit two birds with one stone. Better weapons save Ukrainian lives and do more damage to the resources that threaten us too. Every tank Ukrainians blow up with our advanced missiles is a double win. A win for Ukraine and a win for us.

Even if you don't care one bit about Ukraine, it's still a really smart thing to do for our own sake.

replies(1): >>42191369 #
188. trmaker103 ◴[] No.42190690{6}[source]
French nuclear industry maintains links with Russian giant Rosatom:

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2023/03/12/french...

What about the U.S., which is always holier than thou?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/14/climate/enriched-uranium-...

The U.S. banned it this year, 2 years after Nordstream was blown up, to the amusement and applause from Nuland etc.

189. immibis ◴[] No.42190703{5}[source]
A terrorist act is an act meant to cause terror. High natural gas prices, while they might be very inconvenient, are hardly terror in the same way as things usually described as terrorist acts, which usually involve civilians exploding at random.
190. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42190734{11}[source]
I do know why NATO bombed Serbia. Often when it’s brought up, people neglect to mention why it happened. The result is we have thousands of people who believe NATO is evil because supposedly they’ll bomb cities for no reason.

But there is a reason, which curiously enough you neglected to mention. As the other commenter pointed out, it was to stop an active genocide which was being prosecuted by Slobodan Milosevic’s military and paramilitary forces.

191. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42190768{13}[source]

    > Some other guy already answered you on your post with the original question: "4 April 1949 the day NATO was founded"
Let’s go with that answer. If NATO has been on russia’s border since before Putin was born, how could russia’s justification for invading Ukraine, annexing territory, and slaughtering thousands of civilians possibly be that they were nervous about NATO coming closer to their borders?

It also doesn’t explain why earlier you said “And with Ukraine in NATO, there are no natural barriers between European powers and Russia.”

How does that make any sense at all? There have been “no natural barriers between European powers and russia” for decades already. It has nothing to do with Ukraine.

    > Didn't the Ukrainians shoot it with either an anti-ship missile or a drone jetski?
Interesting! That’s not what the russian government said. Surely you’re not suggesting the russian government would lie, are you?!

    > I really don't care who's right. But I do listen to both sides of the story.
This is hard to believe given the strong bias you have shown towards Kremlin propaganda.
replies(1): >>42196619 #
192. pelasaco ◴[] No.42191369{15}[source]
Well, the situation changes really fast. To make Trump's life harder, Biden gave green to Ukraine to use their weapons as they want. This isn't what the countries around the conflict want, because it means eminent scalation to a nuclear war. So the general opinion among the experts (and Finland and Sweden started this week to prepare to War) is "yes, let Ukraine drain Russia's army, but they shouldn't win this War, otherwise it means 3rd World War". I care about Ukraine people and soldiers, but the a scalation in this War, isn't the right decision for both.
193. InDubioProRubio ◴[] No.42191719{4}[source]
What goes around comes around - the irony being that russia itself- has very little regarding hightech structure that could be sabotaged.

No russian starlink sats. No russian fiber lines. No anything. Just backwater countries, slowly bled dry to have that heap of loot called moscow polished.

The heap of pillaged academics with nowhere to go has wandered off towards the west.

All there is, is vandalism and downfall while high on nostalgia. The aggressive train station HasBeenHobo of international politics.

194. vasco ◴[] No.42193582{10}[source]
Not really, but to declare a whole population as "very bad thing", yes I need to approximate first hand observation. I have no need to declare a whole population bad though.
195. sandos ◴[] No.42193740{3}[source]
Russia wants the West to react, to stop funding Ukraine and instead fund.. protection for their own homelands I guess. This is a known (theory?), and the game theoretic way to then respond is to, ignore that it happens. Dont stoke any fear or reaction from people or government.
196. DiggyJohnson ◴[] No.42195712{7}[source]
Dropping anchor in a channel is something a container ship (especially one without other mitigations like this Newnew, I mean look at it) might do to increase stability and reduce the risk of drifting out of the channel.

I don't care to convince folks in this thread one way or another, but yes, there are reason a commercial ship would drop anchor while underway, including bad weather and a narrow / shallow channel. The circumstances from last year had both.

197. DiggyJohnson ◴[] No.42195744[source]
This is not nearly as obvious as this entire thread is making it out to be, unfortunately. I think it has to due with commercial shipping operations and procedures not aligning with our intuitions.
198. DiggyJohnson ◴[] No.42196619{14}[source]
Dude you need to calm down and realize the person you are discussing this with is not nearly as partisan as you. You are confusing discourse for propaganda and explanation for excuse.
replies(1): >>42196726 #
199. yakshaving_jgt ◴[] No.42196726{15}[source]
As a society we don't accept Holocaust denial. Nor should we accept the legitimisation of russia's invasion and genocide in Ukraine.
200. pvaldes ◴[] No.42198088[source]
Same procedure this time

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/chinese-ship-investigat...

201. dang ◴[] No.42198488{8}[source]
You can't post slurs against populations here.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking HN's guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

202. dotancohen ◴[] No.42201610{12}[source]

  > You were absolutely, unequivocally were dodging the commenter's question.
Because I didn't answer in an hour? I'm not glued to HN all day to argue. And if I don't feel like engaging with someone looking for an argument, I don't engage them.
203. aa-jv ◴[] No.42202506{10}[source]
As in, contains a nuclear warhead. The Tomahawks are nuclear-capable.

Would you want nuclear-capable missiles deployed on your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city?

204. aa-jv ◴[] No.42202512{10}[source]
NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons.

I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself.

Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

replies(1): >>42203550 #
205. aa-jv ◴[] No.42202531{6}[source]
Your belief in the infallible nobility of NATO belies a vested interest in ignoring its massive, undeniable war crimes, crimes against humanity and violations of human rights at massive scale, as an organization, this century.

>Unlike the Ukrainians, NATO/US were smart enough

I do not concur with this glib assessment one bit.

206. aa-jv ◴[] No.42202537{6}[source]
Had. NS2 was almost two years ago. Your current Biden assessment may be correct, but two years ago there was a great deal more lucidity, when he stated that "no matter what, the NS2 pipeline will not be allowed to persist" ..
207. mopsi ◴[] No.42203550{11}[source]
> NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past.

Not true.

> Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?