Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

    (www.cnn.com)
    577 points mooreds | 14 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 #
    belter ◴[19 Nov 24 11:42 UTC] No.42182377[source]▶
    "Germany’s defense minister says damage to 2 Baltic data cables appears to be sabotage" - https://apnews.com/article/germany-finland-baltic-data-cable...
    replies(3): >>42183619 #>>42185086 #>>42186558 #
    1. Cthulhu_ ◴[19 Nov 24 14:12 UTC] No.42183619[source]▶
    English isn't my first language, but isn't "appears to be" inconclusive? It is or it isn't, "appears to be" is still too vague for my liking.
    replies(7): >>42183738 #>>42184776 #>>42185179 #>>42187397 #>>42187808 #>>42188196 #>>42197288 #
    2. beezlebroxxxxxx ◴[19 Nov 24 14:24 UTC] No.42183738[source]▶
    "Appears to be", in English, generally means "on first look/glance." It runs very close to "I believe such and such."

    If I asked you for an answer to a math question, then you showed me the answer with how you got there, on a very quick glance I might say: "That appears to be correct."

    It could mean they've seen more evidence to make that assessment, or are basing that assessment on the same evidence we have. Regardless, "appears to be" is hedging in the absence of certainty.

    replies(3): >>42186312 #>>42186535 #>>42187756 #
    3. dboreham ◴[19 Nov 24 15:48 UTC] No.42184776[source]▶
    It's inconclusive but only a little. There's a spectrum of conclusitivity through "possibly is", "might be", "could be", "very well might", "looks like", "appears to be", "almost certainly is", "is".
    replies(1): >>42185464 #
    4. patmorgan23 ◴[19 Nov 24 16:23 UTC] No.42185179[source]▶
    In this case the phrase likely means "we think it was sabotage but can't prove it yet"
    5. dialup_sounds ◴[19 Nov 24 16:48 UTC] No.42185464[source]▶
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probabilit...
    6. mettamage ◴[19 Nov 24 17:56 UTC] No.42186312[source]▶
    I love this about HN culture. HN culture, in general, feels really patient, empathic and knowledgeable :)
    7. pdabbadabba ◴[19 Nov 24 18:18 UTC] No.42186535[source]▶
    This is right. But I'd add that the fact that the speaker is the German defense minister adds an additional layer of meaning. Ordinarily such a person would not be expected to give such an initial assessment without careful consideration.
    replies(1): >>42187127 #
    8. holowoodman ◴[19 Nov 24 19:26 UTC] No.42187127{3}[source]▶
    Correct. To add context from a German source (https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/ostsee-datenkabel-p...):

    > Bundesverteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius vermutet im Fall von zwei in der Ostsee beschädigten Kabeln zur Datenübertragung eine vorsätzliche Aktion durch Dritte. Man müsse davon ausgehen, dass es sich um Sabotage handle, sagte er am Rande eines Treffens mit seinen EU-Amtskollegen in Brüssel. Beweise dafür gebe es bislang aber nicht. Er betonte: "Niemand glaubt, dass diese Kabel aus Versehen durchtrennt worden sind."

    > Federal Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius assumes the case of to damaged baltic sea data cables to be the intentional action of a third party. One should assume it to be sabotage, he said while at a meeting with EU colleagues in Brusseles. Proof, however, is not available yet. He emphasized: "Nobody believes that those cables were cut by accident."

    So while carefully not saying anything definitive and firm, he very strongly hints in the direction of sabotage.

    9. Beijinger ◴[19 Nov 24 19:52 UTC] No.42187397[source]▶
    Since they likely used the German expression "es scheint", I think your interpretation is correct.
    10. ThinkBeat ◴[19 Nov 24 20:28 UTC] No.42187756[source]▶
    In a political and intelligence sense "appears to be" is a rhetorical tool for propaganda purposes, or / and to cover you ass. He could say "We have no evidence of this being sabotage and further speculation is not useful at this point” which is what he says, from one perspective.

    On the other he is framing a conspiracy theory: "Something happened that appears to be sabotage and sabotage would be done by the enemy. " and the European media has been stuffed full of conspiracy theories during the entire conflicts.

    Educationally you can look at the Nord Stream pipelines sabotage.

    Nearly every EU and US source writes in big letters that Russia was behind it. After a while, it became nearly impossible to keep that conspiracy theory alive.

    Sweden and Denmark ended their investigation into the matter with no conclusion drawn The present narrative is that the sabotage was done by a Ukrainian team with a shoe string budget:

    A Drunken Evening, a Rented Yacht: The Real Story of the Nord Stream Pipeline Sabotage Private businessmen funded the shoestring operation, which was overseen by a top general; President Zelensky approved the plan, then tried unsuccessfully to call it off https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/nord-stream-pipeline-explos...

    replies(2): >>42187880 #>>42188616 #
    11. fracus ◴[19 Nov 24 20:34 UTC] No.42187808[source]▶
    I interpret "appears to be" to mean "we certainly know it to be true based on factual evidence but we need to keep an exit door politically".
    12. brianleb ◴[19 Nov 24 21:19 UTC] No.42188196[source]▶
    The sibling comments are very relevant, but I wanted to provide a marginally different perspective. You have to take not only what is being said, but _who is saying it_ into perspective.

    In this case, this is a government official speaking to the press (i.e. in an official capacity). If they were to say "this was sabotage," that is a definite declaration that the government believes - again, officially and on the record - that an outside party has deliberately done material damage to their country. Given the general situation, it is not a huge leap to come to the interpretation that "this was an attack against our country, and possibly an act of war."

    No government official would want to be within miles (or kilometers) of that sort of statement unless they have pretty much already internally decided from the top-down to escalate the situation. Almost no single government agent has the authority to escalate the situation in that manner. So what we end up with is "appears to be." This overtly says 'all available evidence points to this being the case, however something else cannot be ruled out.' (As a sibling comment suggests, it can also act as a type of propaganda). So it is not an official government declaration that another nation has damaged them, but they have reasons (probably both apparent and not) to believe what they are saying publicly.

    13. petre ◴[19 Nov 24 22:06 UTC] No.42188616{3}[source]▶
    I've read the original Zeit article. What a bunch of mumbo jumbo.

    https://www.zeit.de/politik/2023-09/nord-stream-pipelines-at...

    14. aguaviva ◴[20 Nov 24 19:31 UTC] No.42197288[source]▶
    The phrasing is in any case that of the AP article, not the Defense Minister.

    What the latter actually said was much stronger and less ambiguous.

    As detailed in the helpful sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42187127