←back to thread

Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables C-Lion 1 and BSC at times matching when they broke

(bsky.app)
499 points perihelions | 3 comments | 20 Nov 24 06:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
nabla9 ◴[20 Nov 24 08:15 UTC] 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 ◴[20 Nov 24 08:20 UTC] 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 ◴[20 Nov 24 08:44 UTC] 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 #
chinathrow ◴[20 Nov 24 10:48 UTC] No.42192656[source]▶
It would be so nice to not be dragged into this war by the aggressor. Russia is playing a very stupid game here.
replies(1): >>42192683 #
mschuster91 ◴[20 Nov 24 10:52 UTC] No.42192683[source]▶
> Russia is playing a very stupid game here.

They are not, if you take the larger context into account - and that is China and their saber rattling not just against Taiwan but also against everyone else in what China thinks is "their" influence sphere such as the Philippines.

Russia's warmongering (not just in Ukraine, but also via Syria, Iran and Yemen!) is breaking apart both the US and EU internally - recent elections have shown that both populations are pretty much fed up with the wars and their consequences, and once enough countries either fall to Putin's 5th column outright or their governments pull a Chamberlain, China can be relatively certain no one will intervene too much when they decide that now is the best time to annex other countries.

replies(3): >>42192759 #>>42193010 #>>42193322 #
throwawaymaths ◴[20 Nov 24 11:52 UTC] No.42193010[source]▶
Well the result of China's 5d chess has been to install a leader in the US that is likely to escalate a trade war with china when with an impending demographic crisis they most need someone to stop the trade war. Sheer genius!
replies(3): >>42193044 #>>42193338 #>>42198385 #
llamaimperative ◴[20 Nov 24 12:30 UTC] No.42193338[source]▶
The world will be looking to China as a stable partner while the US voluntarily dismantles its economy and very possibly its political system.

So yeah, the US absolutely got outplayed here.

replies(1): >>42194395 #
throwawaymaths ◴[20 Nov 24 14:53 UTC] No.42194395[source]▶
The us is currently one of the most stable economies, so there's a long way to go.

I think it's unlikely that the world will pick an economic partner that:

- builds 90% of the new coal fired plants while the rest of the world (including the US) is decarbonizing

- has 280+% debt to GDP ratio

- has capital controls on its currency (the real exchange rate could change suddenly at the drop of a hat)

replies(2): >>42194708 #>>42196386 #
llamaimperative ◴[20 Nov 24 15:27 UTC] No.42194708[source]▶
Well... that stuff will be easier to overlook when the US deploys its military to deport millions of people operating the most foundational portions of its economy like agriculture and construction.
replies(1): >>42195144 #
throwawaymaths ◴[20 Nov 24 16:00 UTC] No.42195144{3}[source]▶
OK this is some sort of "America bad" fever dream. Listen America isn't perfect or anything, but you're basically looking down the barrel of crazy if you ignore the steel advantages that the US has, and the history and pattern of US recovery from crises
replies(2): >>42195579 #>>42195621 #
llamaimperative ◴[20 Nov 24 16:36 UTC] No.42195621{4}[source]▶
It isn't "America bad" at all! I believe America is the greatest country in the world, its economy is clearly second to none, and it's clearly the best trading partner for the vast majorities of nations. I also believe America will almost certainly recover from whatever dark period it's (probably) about to endure.

But I'm also well aware of the fact the US has gone through extremely dark periods and its past success is not a promise of future success. At the end of the day a country very possibly plunged into Great Depression II and almost certainly with trade policy changing by the day is not a good trading partner.

There is a very real possibility that we deport our way into a famine. The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised and are already being put into motion by the incoming administration.

replies(1): >>42197263 #
dark_glass ◴[20 Nov 24 19:28 UTC] No.42197263{5}[source]▶
This was also said about slavery and the economy prospered post-slavery. The US economy is absolutely sustainable by paying citizens legal wages. In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration.
replies(1): >>42197347 #
1. llamaimperative ◴[20 Nov 24 19:37 UTC] No.42197347{6}[source]▶
I didn't say anything about long-term viability. I am talking about near-term shocks and then questioning how long a recovery would take. The south's economy was in ruins post-Civil War and only revitalized through immense subsidy, aid, and debt programs. Broadly speaking, the South was in deep, destitute poverty until the New Deal (that is more than sixty years for anyone counting at home!).

Obviously most of that devastation was from the war itself, but if every enslaved person in the country were shipped back to Africa (as many proposed at the time), it absolutely would've had deeply negative near-term consequences. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that economies don't actually depend on labor. Dismissible on its face! And to be explicit: those near-term consequences were morally necessary to bear anyway.

> In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration.

Not sure what this is responding to, tbh

replies(1): >>42198010 #
2. mschuster91 ◴[20 Nov 24 20:54 UTC] No.42198010[source]▶
> > In fact, it is unsustainable to encourage illegal labor and immigration.

> Not sure what this is responding to, tbh

I think this is related to this here:

> The US economy is absolutely sustainable by paying citizens legal wages.

They do have a point there - their argument (as I read it) is that the widespread use of undocumented/illegal labor and the exploitation of these laborers in agriculture has led to an economic gridlock situation: employers make big bucks by not paying their fair share in social security and taxes, fair employers have a hard time competing on price because the cost of fair, legal labor is too high, and they cannot raise prices to a sustainable level because the consumers have no money to pay for that because they themselves don't get paid fairly.

The associated economic theory is commonly associated with the economic effects of minimum wage hikes - these lead (despite all the Corporate Whining) to economic growth because the lowest rungs of society, those actually living on minimum wage, go and immediately spend their additional money, similar to what happened with the Covid stimulus checks, while the upper levels of society hoard additional income and do not directly contribute to economic growth.

replies(1): >>42199146 #
3. llamaimperative ◴[20 Nov 24 23:16 UTC] No.42199146[source]▶
My rebuttal is that no one is arguing to encourage illegal labor and immigration.

"The US economy cannot possibly sustain the type of deportations that have been promised" is not saying "an economy cannot function without illegal labor." It is saying exactly what it says: an economy cannot sustain (i.e. remain healthy through) the mass expulsion of a huge portion of its lowest level labor force.

I made it explicitly clear that I am talking about an (almost certainly) non-permanent problem: "I also believe America will almost certainly recover from whatever dark period it's (probably) about to endure."

By analogy: The statement that the US economy cannot sustain a 90% reduction in equity values market-wide doesn't mean an economy can't exist that's 10% the size of the United States'. It doesn't mean an economy 10% of the size of the United States' can't grow to become as big or bigger than the United States'. It doesn't mean a 90% drop in equity values would delete the United States from existence.

It means that a sudden 90% drop in equity values would shock the system in intensely undesirable ways.

Mass deportations as proposed would be a gigantic shock to the system, and that shock will almost certainly make the US an undesirable trading partner for some time.