←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
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 #
Cthulhu_ ◴[19 Nov 24 14:31 UTC] No.42183822[source]▶
NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia, if it comes to pass. NATO has never and will never be an aggressor, see article 1 as someone pointed out.

If anything, Russia has put themselves in serious shit for invading Ukraine. If they hadn't started this, over 600.000 of their people wouldn't be dead or wounded.

How many countries has NATO invaded?

replies(2): >>42183885 #>>42185106 #
dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 16:17 UTC] No.42185106[source]▶

  > NATO was founded to defend against invasion from e.g. Russia
Exactly. Russia views NATO as an anti-Russian entity. And both sides have phrases that amount roughly to "the best defense is an effective offense".

Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack? And especially if they've already invaded your property twice (France and Germany both invaded Russia).

replies(5): >>42185370 #>>42185545 #>>42185569 #>>42185605 #>>42187086 #
aguaviva ◴[19 Nov 24 17:01 UTC] No.42185605[source]▶
Would you feel threatened if your neighbours set up weapons right outside your property line, ostensibly to defend in case you attack?

Except that never happened in Ukraine, or in any of the other NATO countries close to Russia.

You know that, right?

replies(1): >>42186736 #
dotancohen ◴[19 Nov 24 18:39 UTC] No.42186736{3}[source]▶
I'm showing you the Russian perspective. I don't care one way or the other.
replies(3): >>42186899 #>>42187095 #>>42188540 #
1. stoperaticless ◴[19 Nov 24 21:57 UTC] No.42188540{4}[source]▶
I guess it’s one way to frame it. The other could be:

Somebody is refusing to pay protection money and is forming a “neighbourhood watch”. We need to make example of them.