←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 #
Aloisius ◴[19 Nov 24 02:41 UTC] No.42179627[source]▶
> it was literally a ship putting down its anchor just before the cable and then dragging it over the cable

I don't understand. That's how I'd expect most accidents to happen. Someone decides to anchor too close to an undersea cable, the anchor fails to hold and the drifting ship drags the anchor over the cable damaging it.

I'm not saying it wasn't sabotage, but there needs to be something a bit more than that.

Source: have dragged anchors - thankfully never near undersea cables

replies(5): >>42179695 #>>42180538 #>>42180552 #>>42182029 #>>42187149 #
Maxion ◴[19 Nov 24 06:24 UTC] No.42180538{3}[source]▶
The case last year with the gas pipeline, the Chinese / Russian owned left Kaliningrad, and then while sailing, dropped its anchor before the pipeline and cable, and then dragged it over them, and then raised it. It was apparently accidental, yet both the Chinese and Russians didn't want the crew interviewed, the Estonian and the Finnish authorities both shrugged and didn't really care, and the Estonian energy prices were severly impacted for ~9 months.

IMO very very likely sabotage, and brushed under the rug in fear of Russian escalation.

replies(7): >>42180556 #>>42180869 #>>42181823 #>>42182002 #>>42182265 #>>42182546 #>>42193740 #
card_zero ◴[19 Nov 24 07:36 UTC] No.42180869{4}[source]▶
* The Chinese / Russian owned what left Kaliningrad?

* Which pipeline?

* Last year (2023), not 2022?

replies(2): >>42180998 #>>42181077 #
smcl ◴[19 Nov 24 08:06 UTC] No.42180998{5}[source]▶
There are very few things which can be described as “setting sail” and can “drop anchor” so I think you can fill the gap easily
replies(1): >>42181055 #
jpc0 ◴[19 Nov 24 08:16 UTC] No.42181055{6}[source]▶
Of the big metal things that can "set sail" and "drop anchor" there happens to be a very large set of classifications...

But using your heuristics, that catamarang crew should probably have been interviewed.

replies(1): >>42182834 #
smcl ◴[19 Nov 24 12:46 UTC] No.42182834{7}[source]▶
I think you tried to be a bit too clever there in choosing one of the "big metal things" that you didn't know how to spell :-)
replies(1): >>42188917 #
1. jpc0 ◴[19 Nov 24 22:48 UTC] No.42188917{8}[source]▶
Generally misspellings like this kind of proves the point...

The comment means nothing, neither mine nor the one I commented on so I won't even bother looking up the spelling.

It's more important to understand why the comment is there.

The GP asked what boat, parent effectively said "a boat" which doesn't answer the question. My comment was one of the least likely options, but hey I could have said sailboat...

Not an excuse either but realistically I on a daily basis speak two languages and often interact with people who can barely speak one of those two so I have some basic understanding of a third... Sometimes I can't remember which one spelling rules come from. Not an excuse, it's easy enough to look it up but just context.