Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 1001 posts

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#201

Post by JumpCrisscross »

fuoqi wrote: post #181
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul The West didn't really help Ukraine in the first month [1]. We thought the Russian army was competent and would ride into Ukraine like we did in Iraq. It wasn't until after the weakness was made apparent that aid started dripping in. Ukraine repelled a Russian invasion on its own. Our generations-old anti-air…

The West was actively supplying Ukraine since 2014, especially after the Debaltsevo embarrassment. Yes, it pales in comparison to the post 2022 levels, but it still was far from insignificant. Even your Wikipedia link lists a lot of pre-2022 aid and I am pretty sure this page is far from being comprehensive. And it's even without mentioning the direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul accords.

> it still was far from insignificant

Stil far from closing the gap between the 6th and 13th largest armies. Russia invaded an inferior force and got stymied. This would be like America's Vietnam being Cuba, where we fully committed the U.S. military and economy to the task and still continued to fail. The fact that Russia has never even established air superiority knocks it out of the category of running a modern military.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#202

Post by JumpCrisscross »

johnisgood wrote: post #195
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which happened and kept happening for a long time now We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.

I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.

> heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.

No, it's not. For small-scale war, we are amply stocked. For large-scale war, stocks don't matter, production does.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#203

Post by JumpCrisscross »

rdtsc wrote: post #184
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process Really? Russia, with the 6th largest army in the world, had to pull in Iran and Pyongyang to not get invaded by the 13th largest [1][2]. Moscow is being a nuisance. That doesn't make NATO or Europe look weak, it makes Russia look pathetic. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/world/europe/uk…

> Really? That's exactly how the Russians perceive the EU. They are perceived as weak. There is no way they would have started the invasion if they were afraid of them. They are engaging in asymmetrical warfare because they are convinced they can demonstrate that to the world as well "look what we are doing there and well we get is phone calls form Sholz" [1] > Scholz condemned the war of aggression against Ukraine >…

> That's exactly how the Russians perceive the EU. They are perceived as weak

Europe has been weak. The difference is Russia is weak while trying its hardest. Europe is weak because it can't bother to try.

> That might look like a "power move" by Germany but it looks absolutely weak in the eyes of Putin

Nobody considers condemnations power moves. Also, Putin's track record in reading who's too weak to do what doesn't look too hot right now.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#204

Post by JumpCrisscross »

jasonfarnon wrote: post #199
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point isn't that they don't do things, it's that there are people issuing a constant stream of threats and people doing things, and it's not entirely clear there is even a correlation between the two.

in other words, we need their false negative rate

> we need their false negative rate

We have it. It's almost 100%. They've been threatening WWIII and nuclear armageddon since 2022.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#205

Post by rdtsc »

azeirah wrote: post #107
rdtsc wrote: post #82

> "it’s obvious this wasn’t an accidental anchor drop.” If it's "he who shall not be named", gotta admit, that's a clever strategy: ramp up sabotage and see how NATO/EU will feel about their "red lines", and how well does that article 5 really work in practice. Is it worth more than the paper it's printed on? Let's find out! People have been laughing at the West crossing multiple Russian "red lines" and the Russians…

Weak? Macron is rallying for major support. Poland is building an extremely strong army, and is having none of Russia's BS. Rutte is head of NATO now, and he has peace as his nr. 1 goal. There are so many ads for cybersecurity and military on tv here in the Netherlands. Ukraine received ATACMS (long range missiles) a while ago. This is why they are able to invade Russia back. We are "weak" because Putin has been dest…

> Russia isn't a fucking bear, it's a drunk wasteland with plenty natural resources, but with fucked up leadership. The Russian oligarchy is desperate, and it's showing.

It doesn't matter. It attacked one of the largest countries in Europe, captured territory and is still holding it and making progress. Right under EU's nose. It can brutally throw men in the meat grinder and doesn't worry too much about it. Calling Putin like Sholz did or like Macron didn't help. Showing him a fist that's ready to strike, only that works. Anything else is showing weakness.

> We are "weak" because Putin has been destabilising our peaceful politics over the past 20 years.

The weakness is not accidental, they've been weaving in their agents all over the place and shaping public opinion. Now they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare. Germany has been doing deals with the Russians buying gas and oil from them. Merkel laughed at the US for being worried about it:

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/aa2afe9f-0b5d-45b7-a647-cc61f6d01...

> If we’d known then what we know now, we would of course have acted differently

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#206

Post by armchairhacker »

fuoqi wrote: post #200
armchairhacker wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the right action is to counterattack with equal force, ideally in the same way. So cut one of their undersea cabals, fly jets near or over their airspace, etc. That way, there's a clear line for what NATO will and won't do that Russia can understand. If attacks escalate it will be Russia that escalated every time. If Russia feels it's threatened, all they have to do is stop the attacks and NATO will stop. If Russ…

>fly jets near It's regularly done by both sides. And not only with jets, but also with nuclear-capable strategic bombers. >over their airspace Shooting it down will be a no-brainer for Russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident >If attacks escalate it will be Russia that escalated every time. So sending jets into their airspace is not an escalation, but shooting down the plain is? Yeap, you are not a di…

I don't know whether Russia is flying jets over NATO airspace. If they're not then NATO shouldn't be flying them over Russia.

In my idea it would be essential to confirm Russia is responsible for anything before the even counterattack. If there's an attack NATO can't confirm, the only thing they would do is defend and monitor more closely in case Russia tries the same attack in the future. Only the things that the Russian government definitely does to NATO, NATO would do to them.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#207

Post by okasaki »

aguaviva wrote: post #136
severino wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey, hold your horses. Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, yet after the sabotage, everybody said "it was Russia". Now about this incident, to be consistent, I'm inclined to think it was the Americans.

Biden also threatened to blow up the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, Nope. He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that it obviously means -- that it would be shut off. everybody said "it was Russia" Nope -- some people said that. The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just don't know yet".

Come on dude. He said "we will bring an end to it", and when the reporter challenged him how he's going to do this given that it's a deal between Germany and Russia, he said "I promise you we will be able to do it."

People have been convicted of murder on less evidence.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#208

Post by azeirah »

rdtsc wrote: post #205
azeirah wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weak? Macron is rallying for major support. Poland is building an extremely strong army, and is having none of Russia's BS. Rutte is head of NATO now, and he has peace as his nr. 1 goal. There are so many ads for cybersecurity and military on tv here in the Netherlands. Ukraine received ATACMS (long range missiles) a while ago. This is why they are able to invade Russia back. We are "weak" because Putin has been dest…

> Russia isn't a fucking bear, it's a drunk wasteland with plenty natural resources, but with fucked up leadership. The Russian oligarchy is desperate, and it's showing. It doesn't matter. It attacked one of the largest countries in Europe, captured territory and is still holding it and making progress. Right under EU's nose. It can brutally throw men in the meat grinder and doesn't worry too much about it. Calling P…

> The weakness is not accidental, they've been weaving their agents and shaping public opinion. Now they are engaged in asymmetrical warfare. Germany has been doing deals with the Russians buying gas and oil from them. Merkel laughed at the US for being worried about it:

Yep.. When Merkel was German chancellor, I thought she was amazing. Not a big fan anymore :(

> It doesn't matter. It attacked one of the largest countries in Europe, captured territory and is still holding it and making progress. Right under EU's nose. It can brutally throw men in the meat grinder and doesn't worry too much about it. Calling Putin like Sholz did or like Macron didn't help. Showing him a fist that's ready to strike, only that works. Anything else is showing weakness.

Yeah. I agree. Putin is not interested in anything but power. And he doesn't listen to anything but power. Europe is slow and timid, but the impacts of ww2 are still deeply embedded in our cultural memory.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#209

Post by ocatzzz »

stackskipton wrote: post #156
ocatzzz wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are evidently unaware of UNCLOS and the adoption of many of its provisions into customary international law

I'm completely aware, used to be involved in this stuff. In international waters, these are UNCLOS requirements to board a ship not of your Navy Flag. (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; (c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109; (d) the ship is without nationality; or (e) though flying a foreign…

To be clear, I am not proposing boarding Russian ships. That is pointless.

But the answer to your question is a. Referring to UNCLOS 101(a)(ii) the cables are "property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State".

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#210

Post by Hamuko »

johnisgood wrote: post #195
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which happened and kept happening for a long time now We've been drip feeding and hand tying Ukraine. Practically every military expert has said this is not the way to win a war.

I heard US sent so many weapons that even US' supply of weapons were running low if and when it came to defending themselves. Is it true? I have no clue.

Surely if the US was actually in a situation where it was attacked and had to defend itself, they’d be able to do that. If nothing else, the civilians have a whole lot of guns too and attacks on the US (think Pearl Harbor, 911) have a massive rallying effect. As far as I know, the biggest thing preventing a civilian semi-automatic from being converted to an automatic firearm is the risk of a long prison stint.
Post reply on HN