←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
staplung ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
oneshtein ◴[] No.42182451[source]
Delivery of Russian gas was stopped by Russia in violation of contract. European gas companies demands $20 billion in compensation. Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia.

Of course, Russians used false flag as usual, to blame Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.

replies(5): >>42182510 #>>42182759 #>>42182787 #>>42183833 #>>42183897 #
pelasaco ◴[] No.42183897{5}[source]
> Of course, Russians used false flag as usual, to blame Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.

This is completely wrong. It involved German/Russian infrastructure, and if confirmed, it would rank as the worst terrorist act in the history of the FRG (Germany) since the Munich Olympic Games. In fact, it could, should, or would lead to the activation of Article 5, as one of NATO's members was attacked.

BTW from the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream

" In June 2024 German authorities issued an arrest warrant for a Ukrainian national suspected of the sabotage.[13] "

This (in German) shed even more lights on that https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ukraine/roman-tscherwins...

replies(2): >>42184339 #>>42190703 #
oneshtein ◴[] No.42184339{6}[source]
So, this is one man, who bought, moved, and then installed 500kg of explosives in 4 places in front of a married couple, right?
replies(1): >>42185561 #
1. gruez ◴[] No.42185561{7}[source]
>in front of a married couple

Is this supposed to imply the story is implausible because the couple wasn't in on the plot and would rat the third guy out? If so, all 3 are suspects and presumably are in on the plot, so this argument falls flat on its face.

replies(1): >>42186709 #
2. oneshtein ◴[] No.42186709[source]
Only one man is suspect, a married couple is not.
replies(1): >>42186929 #
3. gruez ◴[] No.42186929[source]
Says who? The DW article says otherwise.

>The two other suspects, a married couple who do not have warrants issued in their names, have denied knowing Z. and said that they were on vacation in Bulgaria when the attack took place.