←back to thread

461 points axelfontaine | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
vesinisa ◴[] No.44039149[source]
Here's a much better article from the Finnish public broadcaster giving more context: https://yle.fi/a/74-20161606

My comments:

The important thing to note that at this point it's just a political posturing and an announcement of intent. They haven't shown any concrete technical plan how this would actually be executed.

> "Of course, we are very pragmatic and realistic, we cannot do this in five years. Planning will continue until the end of the decade, and maybe in 2032 we can start construction."

Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start.

replies(10): >>44039465 #>>44039611 #>>44039693 #>>44039743 #>>44039754 #>>44039771 #>>44039846 #>>44040123 #>>44040743 #>>44045724 #
cladopa ◴[] No.44039611[source]
>Once they have the cost estimates and effects on existing rail traffic studied, I bet construction will never start.

It is not that hard. Countries like Spain have already two different gauges and have the necessary technology in the trains to change between different systems.

replies(2): >>44039699 #>>44044508 #
varsketiz ◴[] No.44039699[source]
One of the main goals of this is to not have the russian gauge available in case russians attack, so that logistics deeper into Finland cant happen easily with the same train, so backwards compatability is not desired.
replies(4): >>44039773 #>>44039786 #>>44039826 #>>44042602 #
potato3732842 ◴[] No.44039773[source]
It's not like this results in a categorical difference in difficulty. Gauge switching infrastructure is common at borders. Yeah stopping and switching is slower than driving right through but it's not the end of the world in the long tail of military logistics.
replies(4): >>44039822 #>>44039942 #>>44040261 #>>44041645 #
theshrike79 ◴[] No.44039822[source]
Russian military logistics _heavily_ depend on trains, everything that can go on a train, does so. Flight and vehicle stuff is mostly an afterthought.

Any hindrance we can put on the Finnish-Russian border to stop them just unloading 12 cars of fresh troops in the middle of the country is a good thing.

replies(1): >>44039892 #
paddy_m ◴[] No.44039892[source]
Another fun note about Russian logistics, they aren't palletized or mechanized. Thought being that cranes don't look good in parades. The train side seems smart or at least interesting, the pallets incredibly dumb.

https://x.com/TrentTelenko/status/1507056013245128716

replies(3): >>44040393 #>>44040490 #>>44040957 #
kranke155 ◴[] No.44040490[source]
This is a debunked post I think.
replies(2): >>44040675 #>>44041356 #
celticninja ◴[] No.44041356[source]
i dont believe it is.
replies(1): >>44045022 #
paddy_m ◴[] No.44045022[source]
Trent and a lot of Ukranian war commentators have a habit of saying $X is catastrophic for the Russians (this is the worst on YouTube). Then those catastrophic things don't come to pass.

Related, I have seen one guy, over and over say "Why isn't Ukraine hitting Russian electric train transformer stations". I don't have a good answer, most of Russia's rail network is electric, transformers blow up easily, there are many of them, and they would be very slow to replace. Ukraine clearly has deep strike capabilities, and Russia cant defend every transformer. I don't think it's a humanitarian issue, or at this point even an issue with the US telling Ukraine they can't hit those targets.

replies(2): >>44045082 #>>44045545 #
wkat4242 ◴[] No.44045082{4}[source]
Transformers are not very hard to replace or make though. All they are is some copper wound around iron. It will just be some added frustration and annoyance for them but no gamechanger. If they start doing it a lot Russia will just build a bigger electrical workforce and more backstock. They have plenty of people and the authorianism to make them do whatever they want. It's just a pissing contest. Russia did lots of cyberattacks on the Ukrainian electrical network in the years before the invasion. Didn't do anything either but send a message.

I would compare it to the Natanz cyber attack which reportedly cost a fortune and caused lots of business losses around the world. It only set the Iranian uranium refinement back a few percent.

Then Obama comes and talks to them, strikes a deal. That solved the issue entirely and cost much less. Of course then Trump comes and messes it all up again but that's another story.

replies(2): >>44045566 #>>44046252 #
1. celticninja ◴[] No.44045566{5}[source]
Do you mean stuxnet? That was a cyber attack, natanz was a blackout caused by a blast/explosion IIRC.
replies(1): >>44050428 #
2. wkat4242 ◴[] No.44050428[source]
Natanz was the site of the facility targeted by stuxnet.

https://www.nti.org/education-center/facilities/natanz-enric...