←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
577 points mooreds | 1 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 #
oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 11:58 UTC] No.42182489[source]▶
RF refurbishes about 1300 tanks a year. It's more than enough to conquer part of Europe and then exchange it for Ukraine.
replies(3): >>42182813 #>>42184387 #>>42184478 #
Cthulhu_ ◴[19 Nov 24 15:21 UTC] No.42184387[source]▶
They might occupy some area, sure, but if they invade a EU or NATO country they'll get that full force on top of them. And they have a lot of aircraft to deploy too; tanks have zero chance against an airstrike.
replies(1): >>42184517 #
oneshtein ◴[19 Nov 24 15:29 UTC] No.42184517{3}[source]▶
NATO cannot stop Russia in Ukraine, even with help of 1 million Ukrainian army. NATO have no enough tanks, shells, soldiers to stop 2 million army in few first weeks, even if Russians will just march with their AK-s in hands. The only thing that will stop Russia for sure is a nuclear strike. Planes are good for strikes, but ground must be captured and hold by soldiers.
replies(3): >>42185202 #>>42185727 #>>42185925 #
1. rurp ◴[19 Nov 24 16:25 UTC] No.42185202{4}[source]▶
Eh, western militaries are holding a lot of weaponry back from Ukraine; like the vast majority of it. They have run low in a few areas that have been key in this war, like artillery shells, but that's in part because these countries haven't prioritized that production in recent history in favor of other systems.

I actually do think that the US and Europe should be moving faster to increase their military manufacturing capacity, especially Europe given the situation they are now facing. But to say that NATO countries have been throwing everything they have to Ukraine is wildly off the mark.