←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 2 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 11:28 UTC] No.42182294[source]▶
Baltic states have 30K military total combined - Russia loses 20-30K/month in Ukraine. So, with all the respect to the Baltic states military - with them being responsible for the defense of about 700km long strip of land, it isn't about full invasion force, it is about having NATO not responding long enough.
replies(3): >>42182628 #>>42185274 #>>42185649 #
1. nkrisc ◴[19 Nov 24 12:18 UTC] No.42182628{5}[source]▶
And Russia can’t expel a Ukrainian force smaller than that from less area of their own territory.
replies(1): >>42182871 #
2. trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 12:51 UTC] No.42182871[source]▶
You're comparing frontal assault on battle hardened troops vs. potentially highly maneuvering invasion. It is somewhat like comparing Harkiv operation in the Fall 2022 vs. counteroffensive in the South in the Summer 2023.

In Kursk Russian forces can't maneuver much, they have to directly push on Ukrainians. The density of Russian and Ukrainian forces in this war - like ~500K each on the 1000km of the battle lines - is order of magnitude higher than that of the Baltic states militaries. Potential invasion in the low density situation of the Baltic states would make sense by cutting through un/low-defended areas with encircling/etc. of the more fortified areas without direct assault of them, at least initially.