←back to thread

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

(bsky.app)
588 points perihelions | 1 comments | 20 Nov 24 06:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | 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 #
cabirum ◴[20 Nov 24 09:27 UTC] No.42192160[source]▶
After the Nordstream pipeline attacked and destroyed, its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites.
replies(5): >>42192401 #>>42194448 #>>42197215 #>>42198095 #>>42199025 #
ajross ◴[20 Nov 24 22:58 UTC] No.42199025[source]▶
I think Nordstream is more of a special case. It was clandestine, but definitely not terrorism. It was an attack on enemy infrastructure in pursuit of an actual, real-life shooting war. One can argue that it was a bad (or good) idea, or that it was/wasn't effetive, or even that its externalities were beneficial in the long term, etc...

But it's not really in the same category as casually cutting internet lines to your peacetime competitors out of pique or whatever.

replies(1): >>42214563 #
RandomThoughts3 ◴[22 Nov 24 15:28 UTC] No.42214563[source]▶
Nordstream is also special because its destruction was not aligned with Russia interests. It limited Europe capacity to import Russian gaz lifting one of the reason which might have made the EU reluctent to fully support Ukraine (and causing a major economic crisis in Europe as a side effect).

Between this and the coyness of most European countries governments at the time to comment on investigation, it's not too far fetch to think that Ukraine might be involved.

replies(3): >>42215532 #>>42228198 #>>42259630 #
rurban ◴[24 Nov 24 14:51 UTC] No.42228198[source]▶
Who did benefit most from the north stream sabotage? Not Russia, nor Ukraine, but the USA. Their gas replaced Russian gas imports.
replies(1): >>42232644 #
1. aguaviva ◴[25 Nov 24 02:25 UTC] No.42232644[source]▶
The sabotage happened after a simple political decision had been made to turn it off (more accurately to "suspend its certification", as it had yet to actually enter service). So there was never any "need" for sabotage. In any case the sabotage as such had no effect on gas imports.

Who did benefit most from the north stream sabotage?

At the end of the day -- nobody of course, as the whole idea that the sabotage could bring any significant strategic benefit (even in terms of the "psychological" front) was pretty much braindead from the start. Meanwhile all it seems to have brought to the table was added instability, more paranoid thinking all around (in addition to the quite substantial methane release).

But it's definitely easy to see why (at least some of) the Ukrainians thought their side could gain something from of it; or they may not have been thinking in terms of any specific strategic advantage, but rather simply spite.

Either way -- the decision was made, and the job was done.