←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 7 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 1.325s | source | bottom
Show context
keskival ◴[18 Nov 24 22:53 UTC] No.42178002[source]▶
And also the cable between Lithuania and Sweden:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/18/telecoms-cable...

replies(2): >>42179277 #>>42179335 #
threeseed ◴[19 Nov 24 01:32 UTC] No.42179277[source]▶
And also Ireland escorted a Russian spy ship away from their cables:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...

replies(2): >>42179746 #>>42180401 #
carabiner ◴[19 Nov 24 05:50 UTC] No.42180401[source]▶
A disruption in communications can mean only one thing: invasion.
replies(4): >>42180465 #>>42183208 #>>42184005 #>>42186154 #
trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 06:08 UTC] No.42180465[source]▶
yes. What Russia does currently is probing and testing - what it takes to disrupt all the necessary cables simultaneously to create communication breakdown and a lot of chaos, what resources and time it takes to repair (and thus planning the options on blocking those repair resources, etc.) It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea. That is the time Russia wants to buy. Once Russian forces are already in Riga, Tallinn, Vilnus, the NATO will have a decision to make on whether to bomb the Russian forces already placed by that time among the Baltic states population.
replies(9): >>42180481 #>>42180683 #>>42180860 #>>42181022 #>>42181892 #>>42182824 #>>42184114 #>>42185835 #>>42188330 #
nkrisc ◴[19 Nov 24 10:23 UTC] No.42181892[source]▶
This would be more concerning if Russia had any tanks left.

Are you suggesting Russia has a full invasion force they’re not using in Ukraine? Or to liberate their own occupied territory?

replies(3): >>42182181 #>>42182294 #>>42182489 #
1. v0lta ◴[19 Nov 24 11:08 UTC] No.42182181[source]▶
Today: no In 5-10 years: probably
replies(2): >>42182833 #>>42184151 #
2. KptMarchewa ◴[19 Nov 24 12:46 UTC] No.42182833[source]▶
No, they literally make barely any tanks. What they do is refurbish and modernize post-soviet stock.
3. Cthulhu_ ◴[19 Nov 24 15:03 UTC] No.42184151[source]▶
Maybe, but that's assuming their war economy lasts for that long, that they still have people to run those things, etc. Besides, Europe was caught with its proverbial pants down; in 5-10 years, they will (should) have their military up to speed again, with fresher, better equipped and better trained people than Russia has. The border countries have all upgraded their defenses already, and if they invade a NATO country they suddenly have all of Europe and - if still applicable at the time - the US on their back.

There are no scenarios in which Russia can have any significant victories. The only thing they maybe have is nukes, but nobody wins if those are deployed.

replies(1): >>42185952 #
4. holoduke ◴[19 Nov 24 17:26 UTC] No.42185952[source]▶
You forgot one thing. Nato has zero combat experience. Its entire economy is not suitable for warfare. Will take a lot longer than 5 years.
replies(1): >>42186176 #
5. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 17:45 UTC] No.42186176{3}[source]▶
Nato has zero combat experience.

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

replies(1): >>42187692 #
6. holoduke ◴[19 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] No.42187692{4}[source]▶
Not a single serious war. A war against Russia will be similar to ww1 and ww2. meaning men from all age groups will die in large masses. Or you believe a war will be similar to sandal terrorists.
replies(1): >>42187802 #
7. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 20:33 UTC] No.42187802{5}[source]▶
Not a single serious war

And you're both changing the goalposts, and setting a ridiculous standard (WWI/WWII) for the minimum standard of what constitutes a "serious" war.