Most active commenters
  • lukan(7)
  • llamaimperative(5)

←back to thread

499 points perihelions | 19 comments | | HN request time: 0.002s | source | bottom
Show context
nabla9 ◴[] No.42191758[source]
October 2023 there was similar incident where Chinese cargo ship cut Balticonnector cable and EE-S1 cable. Chip named 'Newnew Polar Bear' under Chinese flag and Chinese company Hainan Xin Xin Yang Shipping Co, Ltd. (aka Torgmoll) with CEO named Yelena V. Maksimova, drags anchor in the seabed cutting cables. Chinese investigation claims storm was the reason, but there was no storm, just normal windy autumn weather. The ship just lowered one anchor and dragged it with engines running long time across the seabed until the anchor broke.

These things happen sometimes, ship anchors sometimes damage cables, but not this often and without serious problems in the ship. Russians are attempting plausible deniability.

replies(8): >>42191786 #>>42191808 #>>42191875 #>>42191880 #>>42192160 #>>42197213 #>>42197559 #>>42201843 #
spongebobstoes ◴[] No.42191786[source]
What are some concrete reasons why someone would want to damage these cables? Who benefits?
replies(13): >>42191804 #>>42191926 #>>42191944 #>>42192093 #>>42192712 #>>42192787 #>>42192798 #>>42193528 #>>42193799 #>>42194242 #>>42196876 #>>42197632 #>>42201184 #
threeseed ◴[] No.42191926[source]
When Trump becomes President next year he is expected to demand that Ukraine settle the war with Russia or risk losing US aid and military support. It is why Russia is throwing everything at re-taking Kursk and US is now allowing long range strikes.

If the EU decides to join the US the war is over and Russia will keep the occupied lands. If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses.

So it's in Russia's interest to make life as difficult as possible for Europe over the coming months in order to convince them that ending the war is in their best interest.

replies(7): >>42191974 #>>42192656 #>>42192773 #>>42192874 #>>42192941 #>>42198222 #>>42198902 #
ssijak ◴[] No.42192874[source]
"If the EU decides to support Ukraine then because of the devastating sanctions there is a strong chance Russia loses."

How did that not work then yet?

replies(2): >>42193009 #>>42199333 #
justin66 ◴[] No.42193009[source]
They question you're really asking is "why is the war taking so long?"

Because it's a war.

replies(2): >>42193250 #>>42196959 #
sabbaticaldev ◴[] No.42193250[source]
look, if someone looks like they are losing a war in the beginning, middle and the end act of it, I wouldn’t have much faith that extending it is the best solution to finally win.
replies(1): >>42193333 #
1. llamaimperative ◴[] No.42193333[source]
Tautological

The Nazis were mopping the floor with Europe until they weren’t. The Japanese were conquering Asia until they weren’t.

replies(2): >>42193418 #>>42193817 #
2. lukan ◴[] No.42193418[source]
But obligatory reminder, that back then there were no nukes. So it is not exactly the same situation.
replies(3): >>42193665 #>>42194157 #>>42197260 #
3. actionfromafar ◴[] No.42193665[source]
Neither is now the situation exactly that having nukes, means you can tell everyone to back down and do exactly as you say or else.
4. meiraleal ◴[] No.42193817[source]
The nazis won many wars even tho they lost the big one. Will NATO win against Russia? Who knows. But in the showdown NATO/Ukraine vs Russia, they lost.
replies(1): >>42194047 #
5. llamaimperative ◴[] No.42194047[source]
“NATO/Ukraine”? I am literally giggling at the absurdity :D Get a grip.

Russia is getting bombed every day and doesn’t even hold all of its initial territory. It is not clear who will win this.

It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons).

replies(1): >>42195368 #
6. llamaimperative ◴[] No.42194157[source]
Eh, MAD brings us back to equilibrium. It's a significantly more dangerous equilibrium, for sure, but we should be much more afraid of a nuclear accident (not reactor meltdowns but accidental weapon launch) than of purposeful use of a nuclear weapon.
replies(1): >>42195532 #
7. justin66 ◴[] No.42195368{3}[source]
> It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons).

It's interesting the extent to which people haven't internalized this. Russia's industry has really ramped up on military production in the past two years, and their military will eventually get to the point where it can cause tremendous damage against a poorly-equipped Ukraine, through attrition. But the invasion revealed how far behind they are technologically, and a combined NATO force would turn off their entire military's command and control on day one of a real conflict.

It's an inversion of the situation forty or fifty years ago, when Europe had to rely on the the nuclear threat because the Russian conventional forces were considered to be overwhelming.

8. lukan ◴[] No.42195532{3}[source]
Well, the result is the same, no? If one rocket flies, chances are, they will all fly.
9. lpcvoid ◴[] No.42197260[source]
Russia will not use nukes. If you believe they will, then they have you exactly where they want you to be.
replies(1): >>42197366 #
10. lukan ◴[] No.42197366{3}[source]
So how do you know that?

Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? They already are a international Pariah, that is why they align with North Korea.

The only answer is - to remain the last standing they have. But at some point, they might not care. It is dangerous to put someone with nukes in a desperate position. Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine - he would be in a desperate position if the odds of war are against him - currently they ain't.

replies(3): >>42197483 #>>42197721 #>>42199470 #
11. ◴[] No.42197483{4}[source]
12. aguaviva ◴[] No.42197721{4}[source]
Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories?

Because the Biden administration communicated to its regime (in late 2022) that this would definitely trigger a massive kinetic response. In particular it indicated that its ground forces in Ukraine would be utterly destroyed (as Putin knows it is very much capable of doing).

replies(1): >>42197765 #
13. lukan ◴[] No.42197765{5}[source]
Talking and doing are not the same thing. Geopolitics is like Poker, who is bluffing and who is calling it. You are saying only Putin is bluffing - well, I do read russian military blogs/telegram chats. Spoiler: they also think Biden is bluffing.

Don't you see, how this can turn out wrong?

replies(1): >>42197806 #
14. lukan ◴[] No.42197928{7}[source]
If the warning would have been really private, you would not know about it. Since you know about it - it was apparently rather a public statement as well. We both don't know about the real backroom deals and what exact words are used there. What are the real red lines that are communicated behind the curtains - most of those statements are just show. Part of the game. I am pretty sure, that Putin would like to remain in power and not radiated. But I would not bet on it. There are rumors he is sick - and sacrifice and suffering is somehow part of the russian mentality.
replies(2): >>42198022 #>>42199387 #
15. llamaimperative ◴[] No.42198022{8}[source]
The threat is public so people like you can go and sow fear because Russia itself has been revealed as a paper tiger. Kleptocracy can only take a modern civilization so far.
replies(1): >>42198156 #
16. lukan ◴[] No.42198156{9}[source]
"because Russia itself has been revealed as a paper tiger."

I see, you have personally checked the russian nukes and found they are all worthless? Or have access to top secret informations confirming that?

Otherwise it seems a bit out of this world, to claim the country with the most nukes on earth is a paper tiger.

And the russian conventional military is far from a paper tiger as well. That tale comes from the fantasy, that Ukraine is facing russia alone. But the whole NATO is supporting it. Without NATOs weapons and money, Ukraine would have been russian since over 2 years.

But yes, I do have fear. But more from people like you, who look at reality in a way, that fits their ideology.

Just assume for a moment, you are wrong. What would happen as a result, if the people in command would think like you?

replies(1): >>42199228 #
17. llamaimperative ◴[] No.42199228{10}[source]
No, you don't need to check the nukes. MAD still works just like it has for decades. It's inconvenient but this was where we had to wind up the moment we split the atom. People knew the moment we split the atom that this is where we'd wind up.

> And the russian conventional military is far from a paper tiger as well.

Lol okay.

> Just assume for a moment, you are wrong

How about you assume that you are wrong, and you are volunteering for a world where once a nation acquires a nuclear weapon they are allowed to run roughshod over the entire world, raping whoever they want, torturing whoever they want, and cowards will just line up and beg the victims to allow them to continue? Do you hear yourself?

The alternative here is not sunshine and rainbows. The alternative is an even more vigorous race to nuclear weapons from the most vicious regimes on the planet and more horrific crimes committed and excused under nuclear blackmail.

If Russia launches a nuke, they are the criminals. Not the people who stood up to them and "forced" them to do it. Russia has all the agency in the world. They could turn around and march back to Moscow today. How about you go do your "peacemaking" beggar appeasement routine on VK and tell Russians to tremble in fear of the United States deleting their civilization?

replies(1): >>42202353 #
18. pvaldes ◴[] No.42199470{4}[source]
> Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine

A most interesting question is: Would survive Trump?

19. lukan ◴[] No.42202353{11}[source]
"How about you assume that you are wrong, and you are volunteering for a world where once a nation acquires a nuclear weapon they are allowed to run roughshod over the entire world, raping whoever they want, torturing whoever they want, and cowards will just line up and beg the victims to allow them to continue? Do you hear yourself?"

Yes, I can hear myself. And I never said anything like it. And I doubt you can point to where I said or wrote such things. All this thread was about the question if russia would use nukes.

It is telling, that for you just the realisation of this possibility, automatically assumes surrender.

Well, not for me. I am a strong proponent of weapon delivery and training for Ukraine. Despite the chance, that russia might use a tactial nuke. Rumors have it, that at the succesful Ukrainian Cherson offensive 2 years ago - there was serious fear in russian command and increasing pressure of using a small nuke, so much that some western agencies saw the chance at 50%. If the offensive would have moved on towards Krim, then it likely would have happened. And this still did not change - russia (beyond Putin) is very unwilling to give up the Krim. And I can see worse outcomes, than the Krim remaining russian.

Or do you just want the rule of international law and criminals must not be rewarded for aggression? Yeah, I would like that, too. But before demanding total victory over russia for the sake of law at the risk of an allout nuclear war, I see some other chances of improving international law. For example doing something about turkeys conquering. Or Aserbaidschan. Or get the US to abolish the hague invasion act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr.... Or look at some other allies. Etc.