Live data from Hacker News

Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

cnn.com

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#371
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…

Restraint is not weak and pathetic. If you accidentally pick a fight with a BJJ fighter, hope they are a black belt instead of a purple. Or to paraphrase Vladimir Kara-Murza, democracy will come to Russia. So far the west has been better off letting Putin tie his own noose.

> Or to paraphrase Vladimir Kara-Murza, democracy will come to Russia. So far the west has been better off letting Putin tie his own noose.

Unfortunately the noose is a tie and it's soaked in Ukrainian blood so far.

Of course Ukrainians should be grateful for the help they got, and no doubt they are. But they should also be worried about how little they got and based on that rate where this war will eventually end. I am afraid it will end with bleeding all of Ukraine. I wish Western leaders, especially West European leaders were more bold. Where are the Margaret Thatchers, François Mitterrands, and Helmut Kohls of yesteryear. We got milquetoast Sholzs and Macrons instead.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships? High seas (which is what that list applies to) is not the EEZ. I don't think anybody could legally argue thar a country wouldn't have the right to board (or fire at, if it didn't comply) a foreign ship from it's coast 24 nautical miles if it suspected it was doing something illegal. Whether that right exten…

Probably don't want to fire at the nuclear powered cargo ship that is suspected.

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

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because he needed all that time (2014-2022) to build up his forces and cash reserves. Also, he needed a green light. Which was provided in the form of the chaotic Afghanistan pullout in 2021. Not that he was counting on it -- but once it went through, it seems very likely that tipped the scales in his mind in favor of deciding to actually go through with the full-scale invasion in 2022.

Its also been widely reported that when Trump first met Putin he said if he invaded Ukraine, he would turn Moscow and several other cities into a parking lot. Trump in several interviews has said he warned Putin not to do it, that he would pay a very, very heavy cost and he would see to it that he would.

This is all Trump had to do.

He was able to leverage the media's reporting on him that he was reckless, dangerous and prone to rash behavior and they were convinced he was going to start WWIII with? Yeap, you guessed it, the Russians. Putin believed what the media were reporting because Trump himself had verbally warned him.

He didn't need forces and cash. He did what OP recommended, he threatened Putin with force and Putin complied and just waited out Trump. It was a gift that Biden was elected in 2020 and if you go through the news reports, literally months after Biden was elected, Russia started massing troops on the border and readying their troops to invade. Its a strange coincidence that they didn't invade in the four years Trump was in office. He leaves and less than a year later, Russia is preparing to invade? C'mon man.

Your timeline is completely wrong.

- Biden's inauguration took place on January 2021.

- The Russians were amassing troops by December of 2021 (less than a year after he took office).

- The Afghan pullout wasn't until the Summer of 2021

- The Russian officially invaded in February of 2022

The green light wasn't needing forces and cash built up, it was Trump leaving office. The Afghan pullout had no effect on when they were going to invade since they were already massing troops and air support to the border regions where they finally launched their invasion from. Its not like the Russians decided to invade during the Afghan disaster as you insinuated, the invasion plans were already established by then.

Again, the tipping point was Trump leaving office.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#374

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 figur…

I watched a rep from the operators of the cable claim that this particular cable is pretty tough, and anything other than deliberate sabotage would be very unlikely.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#375
post #294

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…

It looks more like they are just winning their war by the most effective means they have at their disposal. To say that Russia is just being a nuisance.... They have just won a war. That is clear as day now. Trump's election is the nail in the coffin. Immediately we saw Schultz call Putin and Zelensky declare that the war will be over early next year - implying a negotiated settlement. It's done. The Russians won. Ex…

Won the war? Putin lost his political goals the first month. Everything since then has just been a very slow (and literal) death animation.

Putin has destroyed Russia's population pyramid and driven away all sensible educated people. Their society is screwed for a generation.

Trump is a wildcard and may try to pressure Putin if he thinks it will get him the Nobel Peace prize he so desperately desires. But even the most conciliatory Trump cannot save Russia now.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#376
post #257

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…

EU as a whole has actually been weak in terms of military capability and perhaps also civil defence. The end of the Cold War and the long peace had allowed a lot of us to believe that there wouldn't be a foreseeable risk of military conflict or a need to seriously prepare against aggression. Many European countries cut back significantly on their military spending and capability. And that seemed like a reasonable and…

Exactly!

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#377

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 figur…

A 1 in 36 million chance for three breaks in one day. https://mathb.in/80217

“Knowing that 200 undersea cables break every year globally, estimate the probability that 3 cables break in the baltic sea on the same day.”

I’m stealing this to use for grad-student mock-interviews—thank you!

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 1 in 36 million chance for three breaks in one day. https://mathb.in/80217

And what about adding in the chances of a Russian spy ship seen relatively near by only a few days earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...

Irish sea is relatively near to the Baltic sea?

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#379
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their shadow oil fleet is operated by third parties and shell companies. We are dealing with a mafia state here. https://windward.ai/knowledge-base/illuminating-russias-shad...

> 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.

1. They already do, because those are old, garbage ships

2. It's not exactly in the interests of NATO to have those ships start spilling tons of oil in the North Atlantic

The problem of that "shadow fleet" is precisely that those are old, uninsured vessels that cause environmental risks.

Re: Two undersea cables in Baltic Sea disrupted

#380
post #257

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…

EU as a whole has actually been weak in terms of military capability and perhaps also civil defence. The end of the Cold War and the long peace had allowed a lot of us to believe that there wouldn't be a foreseeable risk of military conflict or a need to seriously prepare against aggression. Many European countries cut back significantly on their military spending and capability. And that seemed like a reasonable and…

> Many European countries cut back significantly on their military spending and capability.

Not nearly as much as the drop in the Soviet Union / Russia. European military spending is significantly larger than Russia’s.

Post reply on HN