←back to thread

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

(www.cnn.com)
597 points mooreds | 10 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:31 UTC | HN request time: 1.561s | source | bottom
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[dead post] ◴[19 Nov 24 12:45 UTC] No.42182825[source]▶
[flagged]
db48x ◴[19 Nov 24 13:12 UTC] No.42183033[source]▶
The whole idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is ridiculous. Read Article 1 again. <https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.ht...>
replies(2): >>42183876 #>>42185050 #
aa-jv ◴[19 Nov 24 14:36 UTC] No.42183876[source]▶
Do you know whether a Tomahawk missile is nuclear-tipped, or not?

No, you don't.

And neither do the Russians.

So, are you going to be so superficial when Cuba gets Kalibr's deployed?

replies(2): >>42185568 #>>42188617 #
mopsi ◴[19 Nov 24 16:57 UTC] No.42185568[source]▶
What Tomahawks, where? If this is supposed to be some kind of clever hint about weapons in countries that have joined NATO since the end of the Cold War, then unfortunately none of them have Tomahawks, or anything close to them, or anything at all beyond the domestic conventional forces, so this entire comparision bears no resemblance to reality.
replies(1): >>42202512 #
aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 09:24 UTC] No.42202512[source]▶
NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past. Tomahawks were used during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.

Tomahawks are designed to carry nuclear weapons.

I find your ignorance of this fact deplorable. Please inform yourself.

Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

replies(1): >>42203550 #
mopsi ◴[21 Nov 24 12:14 UTC] No.42203550[source]▶
> NATO has deployed Tomahawks in the past and threatened to put them in Ukraine in the not so distant past.

Not true.

> Would you find the deployment of Kalibr (the Tomahawk analog on the other side) to your borders, within 7 minutes flight time of your capitol city, to be an acceptable state of affairs - especially if the deploying party had recently torn up any involvement in the treaties designed to reduce their proliferation?

That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?

replies(1): >>42204213 #
aa-jv ◴[21 Nov 24 13:42 UTC] No.42204213[source]▶
>Not true.

Yes, true:

https://armyrecognition.com/focus-analysis-conflicts/army/co...

Tomahawks used in the illegal attacks on Yugoslavia:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA478026

>That is already a reality with Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad

Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory, versus Americans deploying NATO nuclear weapons on non-NATO territory: whats the difference?

>Should we bomb Moscow to get rid of them?

That depends - do you want to die in a thermonuclear blast?

Because that's how you die in a thermonuclear blast.

replies(3): >>42204355 #>>42206015 #>>42206130 #
aguaviva ◴[21 Nov 24 16:46 UTC] No.42206130[source]▶
Russians deploying Russian nuclear weapons on Russian territory,

You're playing word games here to avoid acknowledging the commenter's perfectly valid point, and it's really quite silly.

replies(1): >>42212469 #
aa-jv ◴[22 Nov 24 09:46 UTC] No.42212469[source]▶
Believe it or not, this is the basis of international law.

You don't get to have standards for one nation but entirely different standards for another.

The USA can deploy missiles anywhere it wants - on its territory, or on the territories of its allies. But of course it needs to suffer the consequences if it decides to forward-deploy them on someone elses territory.

Same goes for Russia. Or, is there some other standard that you're applying that makes it okay for the USA to put nuclear-capable missiles on the borders of its enemies, but not okay for any other nation to do it?

replies(2): >>42214957 #>>42217652 #
1. aguaviva ◴[22 Nov 24 21:50 UTC] No.42217652[source]▶
The issue here is that you're shifting the goalposts.

Here's a boiled-down transcript what just transpired between yourself and the other commenter:

   You:  NATO seeks to deploy missiles within 7 minutes flight time of Russia's capitol. That's bad, threatening.

   They:  But we already have Russian missiles in the middle of Europe, in Kaliningrad.

   You:  But those missiles are on Russian territory, so that makes it OK.
There's simply no logic in your follow-up. Either the concern is missile proximity as you initially stated, or it isn't. And if it is -- you can't simply say it's intrinsically threatening and destabilizing when one country does it, but somehow benign and non-threatening when another country does (simply because in their case the missiles happen to be on their own territory).

Plus there's Russia's announcment of its intent to employ actual nuclear-armed missiles in Belarus, which no one has mentioned. Which would seem to make its complaint about non-nuclear deployments in Ukraine (which everyone knows will be exactly that) largely moot.

replies(1): >>42235587 #
2. aa-jv ◴[25 Nov 24 12:13 UTC] No.42235587[source]▶
Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it?

If not, why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does?

Also, your entire position assumes that Europe==USA, when in fact it simply doesn't. The USA is forward-deploying its missile systems in (currently) friendly states - what happens when those states turn against the USA? Does the USA simply invade and retrieve its missile systems?

replies(2): >>42239207 #>>42241100 #
3. aguaviva ◴[25 Nov 24 19:14 UTC] No.42239207[source]▶
Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it?

No country has a "right" to apply the Monroe Doctrine, anywhere, of course.

The idea that we should defend or empathize with (or "understand") Russia's current smash-and-grab operation underway in Ukraine, based on a perceived similarity between its actions and whatever bad things other empires have done, way back when -- I find to be really quite bizarre.

Why do you think Russia doesn't have that right, when the USA does?

I don't think the US has any such right -- and I find it quite strange that pretend to "know" that I would.

replies(1): >>42240308 #
4. aguaviva ◴[25 Nov 24 21:16 UTC] No.42240308{3}[source]▶
"that you should pretend ..."
5. mopsi ◴[25 Nov 24 23:19 UTC] No.42241100[source]▶
> Does Russia have the right to apply policies equivalent to the US' own Monroe Doctrine, or doesn't it?

Yes it does, but I think you've misunderstood what the Monroe Doctrine was. The Monroe Doctrine was not a blank license for the US to invade other countries and kill people there. The point of Monroe Doctrine was to protect western hemisphere from wars initiated by European colonial empires. A good example of this is the French invasion of Mexico in 1862 in an attempt to turn the newly-independent Mexico into a colony and install European aristocrat from the Habsburg dynasty as the emperor of Mexico. Americans offered military aid to Mexico, and after a few years of fighting, that emperor got executed by a firing squad and French forces were expulsed. Sounds familiar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_French_intervention_in_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilian_I_of_Mexico

Russia is acting like one of those colonial empires that sought to conquer and exploit the Americas. The Monroe Doctrine was formulated against such behavior.

replies(1): >>42241125 #
6. hollerith ◴[25 Nov 24 23:21 UTC] No.42241125{3}[source]▶
And yet when in 1962 the USSR at the invitation of the legitimate Cuban government tried to install missiles in Cuba, the US stopped them through a naval blockade.

Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself, and the PLA accepts the invitation, I want and expect my government (i.e., Washington) to stop them -- with organized violence if necessary such as is currently happening in Ukraine.

replies(2): >>42241166 #>>42241328 #
7. aguaviva ◴[25 Nov 24 23:29 UTC] No.42241166{4}[source]▶
Also not really about the Monroe Doctrine, as the US action was in response strictly to the deployment of offensive missiles (what it saw as a de facto aggressive action against it) -- not the simple fact of Cuba forming a close relationship with the USSR per se.

Also, if government of Mexico ever decides to invite the People's Liberation Army into Mexico to help Mexico defend itself

And if that invitation happened only after Mexico was invaded by the US (on as grounds as equally stupid and unprovoked as Russia's current invasion of Ukraine) -- then I'm sure we can trust that you will not only unequivocally condemn that aggression, but solidly champion Mexico's right to defend itself against it by whatever means necessary.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42199619

8. mopsi ◴[25 Nov 24 23:54 UTC] No.42241328{4}[source]▶
Legitimate is an interesting choice of words for any government in a country that has not had free elections since 1948. Fidel Castro was in charge of Cuba for 50 years without receiving a single ballot cast in his name, despite promising free elections in his first year.

Such dictatorships propped by a foreign power from another side of the planet at the expense of the safety and well-being of people in the Americas looks exactly the kind of thing Monroe Doctrine sought to prevent.

replies(1): >>42241412 #
9. aguaviva ◴[26 Nov 24 00:12 UTC] No.42241412{5}[source]▶
To be fair to the other commenter -- this was back in 1962, when Fidel's regime was (elections or no) by all accounts quite popular and broadly supported, and in any case much more legitimate than the regime which preceded it. Meanwhile, the US never had even borderline free elections until some 130 years after its founding (and they were never really quite free until the 1960s). Ironically, by 1962 its elections were still not "free" by modern standards.

Still, "legitimate" is a weird choice of words to describe unnecessary and provocative WMD deployments in any context.

replies(1): >>42241488 #
10. mopsi ◴[26 Nov 24 00:25 UTC] No.42241488{6}[source]▶
Even by such early point in time, Cuba had already banned free elections. Castro proclaimed in 1961 that "the revolution has no time for elections" and that his dictatorship represents the highest form of democracy. If anyone argues for legitimacy after this point, then they have more faith in the loyality of Cuban people to Castro than he himself apparently had.