Most active commenters
  • oneshtein(8)
  • gruez(5)
  • esarbe(3)
  • (3)
  • aa-jv(3)

←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 34 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
staplung ◴[18 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] 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 #
Etheryte ◴[18 Nov 24 22:38 UTC] 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 #
stoperaticless ◴[19 Nov 24 10:38 UTC] 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 #
pelasaco ◴[19 Nov 24 11:03 UTC] 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 #
1. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 11:53 UTC] No.42182451[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 #
2. FrustratedMonky ◴[19 Nov 24 12:01 UTC] No.42182510[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 #
3. esarbe ◴[19 Nov 24 12:15 UTC] No.42182608[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 #
4. ◴[19 Nov 24 12:29 UTC] No.42182705{3}[source]▶
5. eps ◴[19 Nov 24 12:36 UTC] No.42182752[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 #
6. nbman102 ◴[19 Nov 24 12:37 UTC] No.42182759[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 #
7. probably_wrong ◴[19 Nov 24 12:41 UTC] No.42182787[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 #
8. ◴[19 Nov 24 12:57 UTC] No.42182912[source]▶
9. calmoo ◴[19 Nov 24 14:12 UTC] No.42183620{3}[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 #
10. esarbe ◴[19 Nov 24 14:19 UTC] No.42183699{4}[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 #
11. Cthulhu_ ◴[19 Nov 24 14:25 UTC] No.42183764{3}[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 #
12. aa-jv ◴[19 Nov 24 14:32 UTC] No.42183833[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 #
13. pelasaco ◴[19 Nov 24 14:38 UTC] No.42183897[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 #
14. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:06 UTC] No.42184190[source]▶
LOL Biden has no balls to do that.
replies(1): >>42202537 #
15. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:14 UTC] No.42184282{4}[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 #
16. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:15 UTC] No.42184301{3}[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.
17. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:17 UTC] No.42184339[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 #
18. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:20 UTC] No.42184380[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-...

19. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:22 UTC] No.42184416[source]▶
Russia had $20 billion reasons to blow up their gas pipelines and blame Ukraine for that.
replies(1): >>42185916 #
20. ◴[19 Nov 24 16:39 UTC] No.42185371{5}[source]▶
21. gruez ◴[19 Nov 24 16:50 UTC] No.42185479{5}[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.
22. gruez ◴[19 Nov 24 16:55 UTC] No.42185549{5}[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.

23. gruez ◴[19 Nov 24 16:56 UTC] No.42185561{3}[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 #
24. gruez ◴[19 Nov 24 16:58 UTC] No.42185580{3}[source]▶
Why is "solid proof" required for the claim that Ukrainian nationals did it, but "probable candidate" suffices for Russia?
replies(1): >>42187186 #
25. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 17:09 UTC] No.42185712[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 #
26. holoduke ◴[19 Nov 24 17:23 UTC] No.42185916{3}[source]▶
You mean vice versa i assume.
27. oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 18:37 UTC] No.42186709{4}[source]▶
Only one man is suspect, a married couple is not.
replies(1): >>42186929 #
28. gruez ◴[19 Nov 24 19:01 UTC] No.42186929{5}[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.

29. esarbe ◴[19 Nov 24 19:30 UTC] No.42187186{4}[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.
30. deanCommie ◴[20 Nov 24 00:32 UTC] No.42189622[source]▶
I wish people took this incident to realize that Germany should be investing in energy independence, the way France had.
replies(1): >>42190690 #
31. trmaker103 ◴[20 Nov 24 03:52 UTC] No.42190690{3}[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.

32. immibis ◴[20 Nov 24 03:56 UTC] No.42190703[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.
33. aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 09:27 UTC] No.42202531{3}[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.

34. aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 09:28 UTC] No.42202537{3}[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" ..