621–630 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This would be more concerning if Russia had any tanks left. Are you suggesting Russia has a full invasion force they’re not using in Ukraine? Or to liberate their own occupied territory?
Today: no In 5-10 years: probably
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are very few things which can be described as “setting sail” and can “drop anchor” so I think you can fill the gap easily
Of the big metal things that can "set sail" and "drop anchor" there happens to be a very large set of classifications... But using your heuristics, that catamarang crew should probably have been interviewed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A 1 in 36 million chance for three breaks in one day. https://mathb.in/80217
That's assuming independence. I'm not ruling out sabotage but the world is often not fully independent. A storm or an anchor both may affect multiple cables if they're in generally the same area which would definitely make the probability far more likely than those stated. (edit typo)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wish I lived in a world where it's so easy to know who is good and who is evil and to pinpoint them so well.
It is easy; nations that attack other nations unprovoked are "evil" (at fault). Ukraine has never infringed on Russia's sovereignty or territorial integrity before it was attacked. Therefor this war is entirely Russia's fault. The world is mostly shades of gray. But this case it black and white.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They can field more "research" vessels than... Back during the cold war, there was very often a Soviet "fishing boat" trailing after any substantial US Navy fleet. Said fishing boat may have had far more antennas than any fisherman would expect, but far less interest in catching fish. Fast forward - what would be the cost of having cheap western drones hanging around nearby, when suspected Russian assets were close…
Fuel costs I suspect, which is where those continuous flight high altitude solar powered planes NASA was experimenting with really come into play. That said, satellite tracking shipping is pretty easy - It's interdicting ina timely fashion which is not.
But cheap drones can transmit "don't do that!" warnings. And also video footage of the situation. Which would seriously change both the maritime law and political situations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Baltic states have 30K military total combined - Russia loses 20-30K/month in Ukraine. So, with all the respect to the Baltic states military - with them being responsible for the defense of about 700km long strip of land, it isn't about full invasion force, it is about having NATO not responding long enough.
And Russia can’t expel a Ukrainian force smaller than that from less area of their own territory.
In Kursk Russian forces can't maneuver much, they have to directly push on Ukrainians. The density of Russian and Ukrainian forces in this war - like ~500K each on the 1000km of the battle lines - is order of magnitude higher than that of the Baltic states militaries. Potential invasion in the low density situation of the Baltic states would make sense by cutting through un/low-defended areas with encircling/etc. of the more fortified areas without direct assault of them, at least initially.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Delivery of Russian gas was stopped by Russia in violation of contract. European gas companies demands $20 billion in compensation. Nobody had incentive to blow up empty pipes except Russia. Of course, Russians used false flag as usual, to blame Ukraine, but Ukraine doesn't hide successful attacks on Russian infrastructure, because Ukraine has legal right to defend itself.
That is a very abbreviated history. There are two pipelines, NS-1 and NS-2, both of which have two pipes each. NS-1 was operational until a turbine had to be repaired in Canada. The bureaucratic process to allow the repair was arduous, but finally it got done and chancellor Scholz did a photo-op in front of the repaired turbine. Then the Russians played coy and came up with counter-bureaucratic reasons why the repair…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a misleading framing. The two cables last year were not taken out by an anchor as an accident, it was literally a ship putting down its anchor just before the cable and then dragging it over the cable. In other words, sabotage. There's no point in trying to color any of this with rose tinted glasses when it's clear who's done it and why.
If this wasn't an accident, given the recent Biden escalation that allows ATACMS strikes in Kursk in could mean two things: 1) Russia hastily retaliated, which is out of character. You can accuse Russia of many things, but not of retaliating instantly (against the West, in Ukraine they probably do). 2) False flag in order to drum up pro-war sentiment in the West. If Biden escalates in the last weeks of his presidency…
If anything artificial limits have been placed on Ukraine that are not placed on other nations (or in some cases proscribed terrorist organisations) purchasing or being "gifted" weapons. Whether those weapons are from the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, RoK, whoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes. What Russia does currently is probing and testing - what it takes to disrupt all the necessary cables simultaneously to create communication breakdown and a lot of chaos, what resources and time it takes to repair (and thus planning the options on blocking those repair resources, etc.) It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea. That is the time Russia wants to buy. Once Russian forces…
>It takes tanks half-a-day to cross the Baltic states to reach the sea. And what happens if they actually go for that distance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Voznesensk
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this person is just speaking the truth - I worked for an ISP with cable landing stations. These cables went down several times a year due to physical damage of non nefarious kinds. It's not obvious that this malicious. It certainly might be but it's not a slam dunk.
Yeah and if you shoot someone and they die it might be an unrelated heart attack.