Most active commenters
  • dotancohen(5)
  • yakshaving_jgt(4)
  • aa-jv(3)

←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 19 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 #
mciancia ◴[19 Nov 24 11:09 UTC] No.42182183[source]▶
> people are thirsty for War, looks like

Russians, yes

replies(1): >>42182243 #
vasco ◴[19 Nov 24 11:19 UTC] No.42182243[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 #
esarbe ◴[19 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42182601[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 #
dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 12:45 UTC] No.42182825[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 #
1. db48x ◴[19 Nov 24 13:12 UTC] No.42183033[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 #
2. aa-jv ◴[19 Nov 24 14:36 UTC] No.42183876[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 #
3. dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 16:13 UTC] No.42185050[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 #
4. yakshaving_jgt ◴[19 Nov 24 16:42 UTC] No.42185403[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 #
5. mopsi ◴[19 Nov 24 16:57 UTC] No.42185568[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 #
6. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 16:58 UTC] No.42185576[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 #
7. dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 18:43 UTC] No.42186775{3}[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 #
8. yakshaving_jgt ◴[19 Nov 24 18:51 UTC] No.42186839{4}[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 #
9. aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 19:00 UTC] No.42186910{4}[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 #
10. holowoodman ◴[19 Nov 24 19:52 UTC] No.42187400{3}[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.
11. stoperaticless ◴[19 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42188617[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 #
12. dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 23:23 UTC] No.42189145{5}[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 #
13. yakshaving_jgt ◴[20 Nov 24 04:13 UTC] No.42190768{6}[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 #
14. DiggyJohnson ◴[20 Nov 24 18:09 UTC] No.42196619{7}[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 #
15. yakshaving_jgt ◴[20 Nov 24 18:23 UTC] No.42196726{8}[source]▶
As a society we don't accept Holocaust denial. Nor should we accept the legitimisation of russia's invasion and genocide in Ukraine.
16. dotancohen ◴[21 Nov 24 06:14 UTC] No.42201610{5}[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.
17. aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 09:22 UTC] No.42202506{3}[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?

18. aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 09:24 UTC] No.42202512{3}[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 #
19. mopsi ◴[21 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42203550{4}[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?