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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#341

Post by DiggyJohnson »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #322
libertine wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natural disaster... taking down many would mean many disasters. The real question is, should security and defense concerns be placed on hold? If our basic freedoms and rights are being attacked, how big of a deal would be a shadow fleet tanker catastrophe?

Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.

That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#342

Post by jojobas »

libertine wrote: post #275
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies Would be a shame if they started having engine troubles in the middle of the ocean.

The "problem" of Western countries is that the political sphere operates under different moral compasses: like taking down a shadow fleet tanker would be a natural disaster... taking down many would mean many disasters. The real question is, should security and defense concerns be placed on hold? If our basic freedoms and rights are being attacked, how big of a deal would be a shadow fleet tanker catastrophe?

Western countries have intelligence services with sabotage departments and in general are not above blowing up things their leaders don't like.

If the CIA or US Navy don't have the technical means to blow up the Crimea bridge with plausible deniability they haven't been paying attention.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#343

Post by tptacek »

csomar wrote: post #339
tptacek wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe at this point we have a pretty good guess as to who sabotaged the pipeline, and it wasn't the US.

No we do not. Saying it with "confidence" and "authority" doesn't make true either.

Sure we do. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/11/11/...

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#344

Post by [deleted] »

usr1106 wrote: post #319
firebaze wrote: post #254

Nord Stream Part II

No. Nord Stream seem more and more having been an Ukrainian action. Maybe not official government, but obviously more in Ukrainian interest than in Russian. I can't see any Ukrainian interest an cutting internet between two of their supporters. Whether the support has been sufficient can be debated, but both are supporters. Germany among the top in absolute terms, Finland among the top relative to their own size. Yes…

[deleted]

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#345

Post by aguaviva »

valval wrote: post #300
polotics wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nato is a defensive alliance against any offensive act. Russia, ...as in: the mafia of the few profiteering rulers currently at the helm, is not fighting back anything. Firstly, its mad Ukrainian adventure has meant it has made its border very defence-free on its border with Nato countries. Secondly, it is constantly attacking in hybrid warfare mode, paying local lowlife to do propaganda graffiti and sabotage. The ap…

Are you seriously telling me that the opposing side would care about what an alliance calls themselves? Hitler could call the axis powers a defensive allience and it wouldn’t make it so. Cmon, this is basic reasoning that most 10 year olds would grasp. NATO has engaged in a dozen wars and conflicts as aggressors.

NATO has engaged in a dozen wars and conflicts as aggressors.

A careful examination of the list below suggests that, in terms of your choice of the words "dozen" and "aggressor", the way they are usually meant in English -- you're definitely stretching things, here.

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

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#347

Post by [deleted] »

chii wrote: post #332
petre wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" already screwed their pipeline, what's left? Provide Ukraine with the means to blow up the Kerch bridge maybe? They're the ones that could legitimately do that sort of escalation.

> "We" already screwed their pipeline unfortunately, "we" didnt have to pay a sacrifice to the economy for it, because germany paid it. The US is too afraid of nukes, and won't escalate. The russians rightly predicted this.

[deleted]

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#348

Post by dxdenton »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #337
HumblyTossed wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We" won't respond because "we" just elected a Russian asset and he is going to install more in his cabinet.

It's already been settled that the trump dossier from 2016 was a work of fiction. Why did Putin take crimea under Obama's watch, parts of Ukraine under Biden's watch, but then not make any huge moves like those while his "asset" was in the white house?

[flagged]

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#349

Post by Hizonner »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #135
cynicalsecurity wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are replying to a Russian bot, most likely.

Interesting twist… I chose “provocation” because thats what russians often use (and call for nuking west pretty much every day for decades now).

> and call for nuking west

The number one most noticeable English mistake Russians tend to make is dropping articles all the time...

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#350

Post by mlyle »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #341
toomuchtodo wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those ships are going to be transiting somewhere unloaded. That is when you engage them.

That would be in the busiest shipping ports, channels, and anchorages in the entire world. Aka the most bananas place to interdict.

If something bad happened to a mostly empty Russian shadow tanker in the Gulf of Finland, that impact is going to be mostly confined to Russia. i.e. past the major Finnish and Estonian ports.

As long as we're all playing silly only-kinda-deniable games, that's an option on the table.

Post reply on HN