←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: 0.001s | source
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 #
MasterYoda ◴[19 Nov 24 08:25 UTC] No.42181124[source]▶
The last time it happened, the Russian ship had also been seen unnaturally going back and forth over the cable where the damage occurred. These damages do not happen by themselves. Considering the current international situation and the fact that it happened in a short time in several places unnaturally in a limited region, the Baltic Sea, you have to be very naive if you do not see this as probable sabotage.
replies(2): >>42183205 #>>42186642 #
autokad ◴[19 Nov 24 18:29 UTC] No.42186642[source]▶
well, we did blow up their pipeline, so not like we didnt open the salvo for making international resources fair game
replies(4): >>42186740 #>>42187003 #>>42187917 #>>42187924 #
mantas ◴[19 Nov 24 18:39 UTC] No.42186740[source]▶
Who is „we“?
replies(1): >>42186780 #
autokad ◴[19 Nov 24 18:44 UTC] No.42186780[source]▶
you can call it NATO
replies(1): >>42187896 #
1. mantas ◴[19 Nov 24 20:44 UTC] No.42187896[source]▶
So, Germany?
replies(1): >>42189594 #
2. deanCommie ◴[20 Nov 24 00:29 UTC] No.42189594[source]▶
Your profile says you're in Lithuania. Lithuania is part of NATO.

IF this was an officially sanctioned mission by a NATO country, then you're part of the "we".

That's kind of the deal with alliances.

replies(2): >>42190691 #>>42193782 #
3. immibis ◴[20 Nov 24 03:52 UTC] No.42190691[source]▶
Hello Mr Internet Research Agency employee,

A random Lithuanian person is not Germany.

Hope this helps.

replies(1): >>42191031 #
4. deanCommie ◴[20 Nov 24 05:22 UTC] No.42191031{3}[source]▶
So long as we live in democracies, we are responsible for the actions of our governments.

You can certainly go "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" during domestic discussions of displeasure of the ruling party. But, in international affairs, we are accountable for our government's foreign policies.

I'm Canadian. "We" are in a proxy war with Russia. "We" need to win lest Putin thinks he can just take sovereign nations like Ukraine without the rest of the world stopping him.

Appeasing dictators is a losing policy. "We" need to do everything possible by having Europe fund Ukraine, and now while "We" have Biden agreeing to do so, until Trump takes over and "we" have infighting between NATO nations about what to do about Ukraine.

5. mantas ◴[20 Nov 24 13:31 UTC] No.42193782[source]▶
Yes. But in this case it's not known who did this. One NATO member is trying to pin it on Ukraine. But evidence is scarce. Personally I'm 50/50 whether this was russian false-flag or combined effort of some NATO members and Ukraine.