←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 5 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 #
1. KptMarchewa ◴[19 Nov 24 12:45 UTC] No.42182824{3}[source]▶
>It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea.

And what happens if they actually go for that distance?

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

replies(1): >>42182931 #
2. trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 12:59 UTC] No.42182931[source]▶
yes, due to geography, success at Voznesensk basically saved Odessa and the rest of the unoccupied South. That is the point - if Russia took Odessa back then it would basically be game-over. I don't see such strategic points like Voznesensk in the Baltic states though.
replies(1): >>42183089 #
3. KptMarchewa ◴[19 Nov 24 13:18 UTC] No.42183089[source]▶
There is vast difference between just driving somewhere and actually controlling it. Russia learned that in first month of the invasion. If they weren't stopped at Voznesensk, they would be stopped somewhere else - there was singular BTG driving somewhere deep into hostile territory.

Another example of BTG driving deep and getting decimated: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g68MmLrGvM

replies(1): >>42183291 #
4. trhway ◴[19 Nov 24 13:40 UTC] No.42183291{3}[source]▶
>There is vast difference between just driving somewhere and actually controlling it. Russia learned that in first month of the invasion.

I made such comment here in the first hours of the invasion :)

>If they weren't stopped at Voznesensk, they would be stopped somewhere else

if they were able to take the bridge at Voznesensk, that BTG would keep it, and more forces would come that way.

replies(1): >>42183356 #
5. KptMarchewa ◴[19 Nov 24 13:46 UTC] No.42183356{4}[source]▶
I don't believe they'd be able to keep and reinforce it, given that they were only able to bypass Mykolaiv due to the early day chaos. And Mykolaiv was giving rest of russian forces there enough problems.

However, at this point it's only speculation, probably not worth getting deeper into it.