[HN Gopher] Mystery fault takes out undersea internet cable betw...
___________________________________________________________________
Mystery fault takes out undersea internet cable between Germany and
Finland
Author : mooreds
Score : 66 points
Date : 2024-11-18 14:31 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| bell-cot wrote:
| It'd be nice to see stories about a western navy or two getting
| off its butt, and actually trying to discourage "accidents" which
| damage critical infrastructure.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| On the other hand, I'd rather see cables get cut than watch
| shells get lobbed between world powers.
| myworkinisgood wrote:
| at these points, these cable cuts are more dangerous than
| actual bombs
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I'm not convinced that cutting an internet cable - even a
| vital one - results in more actual death and human misery
| than actual bombs falling on urban centers.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| There is a point where this kind of aggression, left
| unchecked, may ultimately lead to actual bombs falling on
| urban centers. It's already happening in Ukraine. The
| global peace we all enjoy in the West is based on the
| idea that the price of aggression is higher than the
| benefits.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| "this kind", "left unchecked", "may ultimately"; that's
| three levels of maybes used to defend a definitive "are
| more dangerous" claim, not exactly inspiring rigour.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| There is a point where this kind of aggression, left
| unchecked, may ultimately lead to actual bombs falling on
| urban centers. It's already happening in the Ukraine. The
| global peace we all enjoy in the West is based on the
| idea that the price of aggression is higher than the
| benefits.
|
| Also: Internet cables today, essential power distribution
| cables tomorrow. Infrastructure is fragile, and human
| lives will eventually be at stake.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I mean, you're not wrong. And in general, this is ...
| high-stakes bullying. And if you let them get away with
| this, I agree that they'll keep pushing the boundary,
| even more than they already have;
| bobnamob wrote:
| ? Seriously?
|
| Cables getting cut is only dangerous because it's an
| escalation that may lead to bombs. There aren't thousands
| of civilians dying because Finland doesn't have high speed
| fibre to Germany.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| I'd prefer if the devs added resilience to network outage
| over having navies fight each other...
|
| Especially as navies are just fundamentally not constructed
| to defend extended things like a cable: starting a war over
| them is the best way to ensure every cable is cut.
| imp0cat wrote:
| Like it or not, somebody will have to do something about
| Russia, sooner or later.
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| Could you maybe be _specific_ about what you mean by
| "somebody" doing "something"?
| rightbyte wrote:
| 'Somebody' is 'the US' and 'something' is 'extended
| suicide'.
| bell-cot wrote:
| There are quite a few response levels between "don't even
| bother monitoring the sabotage" and "start WWIII".
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| As the saying goes, who lets others cut cables to have peace
| deserves neither and will have both taken away.
| toss1 wrote:
| They do already, but do need reinforcement.
|
| >>""We put in place a National Maritime Information Centre in
| about 2010 and we needed a Joint Maritime Operations
| Coordination Centre alongside it, because we said very firmly
| we have to take threats to our territorial seas and exclusive
| economic zone very, very seriously.
|
| They are now in place, which is good, but they need to be
| really reinforced and the departments involved need to fully
| man them, because otherwise we are not going to be able to
| counter what is a very real and present threat and could cause
| major major damage to our nation."" [0]
|
| [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-
| undersea-...
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Alas, some would rather let criminal governments invade
| sovereign countries, commit acts of global sabotage and murder
| dissidents all over the world rather than take any action at
| all to dissuade them. Peace through appeasement is likely to
| work as well as it has at any other point in history.
| whythre wrote:
| Right? Turns out having a spine is really annoying and
| inconvenient for the ruling class who now find themselves
| actually having to fend off interlopers.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Are you referring to the US or Russia here? Hard to tell when
| you talk in riddles.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687
|
| Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and communication
| cables in the North Sea, according to new allegations.
|
| The details come from a joint investigation by public
| broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
|
| It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing
| trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea.
| meiraleal wrote:
| It is time to get off your high horses and realize that western
| military might doesn't rule the world anymore.
| jasonvorhe wrote:
| Closing in on at least 3 years of hybrid warfare and yet this is
| nothing but a "mystery".
| toss1 wrote:
| Substantial Russian activity _also_ near UK, raises concerns that
| Russia would cut off UK. [0]
|
| Russian ships 'plotting sabotage in the North Sea' [1]
|
| [0] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-
| undersea-...
|
| [1] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-
| ships...
| whythre wrote:
| Do these nations not have navies? Can't they tell the Russian
| non-combat ships (or _pressure_ them) to get lost?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| And risk escalation!? /s
| toss1 wrote:
| Just because it is not publicized does not mean it is not
| happening. Most military operations do not take along
| journalists, and are not reported to the press. Some are even
| secret.
|
| That said, there is a limited amount that can be done in
| international waters without creating an international
| incident. Law Of The Seas, Freedom Of Navigation, etc.. It is
| to our advantage for example, when we want to prevent CCP's
| from denying access to international waters around Taiwan or
| Phillipines, but to Russia's advantage when scouting undersea
| cables in international waters.
|
| They can field more "research" vessels than we'd typically
| field mil vessels, but I'd bet real money that that ratio
| just changed _a lot_ in the past few weeks, as it hits the
| press.
| bell-cot wrote:
| > 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 to undersea cables, pipelines,
| and such?
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| We do but ocean and air is big :)
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-jets-
| in...
|
| Also with cables, they can be destroyed with "innocent" ships
| that have a right to be there actually :)
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65309687
|
| Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and
| communication cables in the North Sea, according to new
| allegations.
|
| The details come from a joint investigation by public
| broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
|
| It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing
| trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea.
| taneliv wrote:
| Who says they don't do that constantly, but missed it this
| time?
| lxgr wrote:
| > Can't they tell the Russian non-combat ships (or pressure
| them) to get lost?
|
| Not in international waters, which is where submarine cables
| are largely located.
|
| And even if they could: The oceans are... kind of big. If it
| were that easy to "just patrol" shipping lanes/submarine
| cable tracks etc., why would piracy still be a concern?
| petre wrote:
| The Irish just chased away a Russian "research" vessel.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
| pitaj wrote:
| Are there not cables run through the Channel Tunnel? Seems like
| a no-brainer.
| DyslexicAtheist wrote:
| sharks. maybe even Russian sharks.
| jacknews wrote:
| "Russia had a fleet of suspected spy ships operating in Nordic
| waters as part of a program of potential sabotage of underwater
| cables"
|
| Nope.
|
| We know who does the disrupting of undersea infrastructure, and
| then blames Russia for it, while scooping up their gas contracts.
|
| If this is anything other than an actual fault or natural damage,
| consider that it is owned and run by China.
| niemandhier wrote:
| The company owning the cable is called ,,Cinia", per article it
| is owned by the finish government.
| wil421 wrote:
| Who scoops us their gas contract, the Netherlands? Or the
| sneaky Belgians?
| pitaj wrote:
| They are talking about the USA, probably
| jacknews wrote:
| Sure, both major gas producers.
|
| Why did Europe need Russian gas at all, when there's clearly
| so much under foot? Obviously the 'invisible hand' of the
| market will fetch the gas from where it's fracked.
| threeseed wrote:
| Russian spy ship was escorted out of Irish waters:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-sh...
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| I look forward to everybody completely missing the resolution to
| this mystery when it turns out it was something like a Danish
| sailing boat that got unlucky with their anchor...
| lxgr wrote:
| How does the saying go? Once [1] is happenstance, twice [2] is
| coincidence, but thrice [3]...
|
| [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/finnish-
| governme...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sweden-says-telecom-
| cab...
|
| [3] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/18/europe/undersea-cable-
| disrupt...
| threeseed wrote:
| Also a Russian spy ship was escorted out of Irish waters a
| few days ago:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/16/russian-spy-
| sh...
| philip1209 wrote:
| It seems that the obvious solution could be Starlink-style
| meshes.
|
| Can anybody comment on how fragile the Starlink protocol would be
| during a war? If its line-of-sight, presumably it would be hard
| to jam?
| mempko wrote:
| Did Russia make a threat to Elon Musk at some point that it
| would take down Starlink satellites?
| andrelaszlo wrote:
| The Swedish part of AMPRNet [0] has some ambitions to be a
| fallback in case of a crisis[1]. It seems cheaper and easier (a
| bit of an understatement) to deploy and repair, in case it gets
| attacked.
|
| 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMPRNet
|
| 1: https://amprnet.se/images/Kriskommunikation-2014-01-27.pdf
| aredox wrote:
| Send some sharpnel on the same orbital altitude as Starlink and
| the whole constellation disappears.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| True, if by "some" you mean a few thousand rocket launches
| worth of shrapnel.
| nixass wrote:
| few dozen crashed satellites quickly become shrapnel on
| their own, spreading in all directions. not at "shrapnel
| speed" but nevertheless..
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| At Starlink altitude there is still operationally
| significant volumes of air. So much so that Starlinks
| need to altitude raise regularly. Starlink shrapnel would
| drop below Starlink orbit almost immediately, and
| completely deorbit in a month or so.
| jahnu wrote:
| Ignoring everything else, C-Lion1 has a bandwidth if 144
| Tbit/sec
|
| How much can a constellation offer say between many points in
| both countries? Seems unlikely it could get close but I would
| like to know.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Lion1
| verdverm wrote:
| Nuclear detonation(s) in LEO would likely cause significant
| harm
| wood_spirit wrote:
| Elon Musk is not someone Europe feels it can rely on in a
| crisis when Russia attacks
| Gud wrote:
| Elon Musk is probably the private individual who has done
| most for Ukraine.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_in_the_Russo-
| Ukrain...
| wil421 wrote:
| How much of this is news and how much of it is normal occurrences
| due to shipping or fishing?
| SiempreViernes wrote:
| I've found this example of a proven sabotage:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21963100 which
| involved a few guys caught in the act less than 1 km from
| shore, then there are a lot of "suspicious" events where
| intention is never publicly proven.
| wil421 wrote:
| Thanks. I was trying to figure out if the news is reporting
| on every little anchor snag or if it is an abnormal
| occurrence.
| taneliv wrote:
| Well, it's a major cable and entirely unoperational at the
| moment, so newsworthy irrespective of the reason.
| wslh wrote:
| https://archive.is/ZucmV
| gnabgib wrote:
| Discussion (44 points, 5 hours ago, 43 comments)
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172565
| schroeding wrote:
| It's a different cable, even though they were close together.
| gnabgib wrote:
| CNN and Bloomberg mention both cables (although both articles
| have update times)
| nyeah wrote:
| It seems very likely to be the same incident.
| dang wrote:
| Merged hither. Thanks!
| mg wrote:
| Hetzner seems unaffected? ping
| hel1-speed.hetzner.com
|
| Gives me 52ms from Germany which should be about normal?
| deliciousturkey wrote:
| It should be around 25 ms in normal conditions. That's what I
| got when pinging Hetzner in Germany, from Finland, when the
| cable was still in use and when using a connection that routes
| through the cable.
| Stagnant wrote:
| I think it is slightly higher than normal. I remember getting
| 30-40ms pings to germany in recent years. 45-55ms is around the
| range it used to be in early 2010's before the direct cable
| from finland to germany was built.
| thewavelength wrote:
| Hetzner says they are affected:
| https://status.hetzner.com/incident/ec8a2f28-e964-46cb-94fa-...
| Hamuko wrote:
| That is a very terse statement all things considered.
| sigio wrote:
| I'm getting 25ms from my mailserver at hetzner helsinki to
| amsterdam. Looks more then OK to me.
| hengheng wrote:
| I keep wondering if that scale of operation that we are
| witnessing is their "testing the waters" phase and it is 1% of
| their true capability, of if what we're seeing is already their
| full-steam operational pace.
|
| They do a good job of instilling fear, but we've learned from
| Ukraine that there are a lot of paper Tigers in that army that
| aren't as capable in a real fight as they are in a demonstration.
| Etheryte wrote:
| So to keep score, in the last year we've seen cables sabotaged
| between Finland and Germany, Lithuania and Sweden, Estonia and
| Sweden, Estonia and Finland. Any others I missed? You might say
| it's too early to call it sabotage, but the earliest two cable
| incidents were exactly the same, so it's hardly a coincidence at
| this point.
| barryrandall wrote:
| Russia warned that they were going to do this last week. I
| think it's pretty reasonable to conclude that 1) this was
| sabotage and 2) it was Russia.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Russia warned that they were going to do this last week_
|
| Source?
| farbklang wrote:
| first result: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-
| patrushev-putin...
| stavros wrote:
| https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-patrushev-
| putin...
|
| I guess they warned in their own way, of "nice cables
| you've got there, it would be a shame if someone...
| sabotaged them".
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| They're constantly saying this about everything.
| baq wrote:
| every once in a while they actually follow through with
| some. they need some prison mafia credibility to not look
| like total clowns.
| ivandenysov wrote:
| They also threatened UA with a full scale invasion by
| doing troop trainings on the border for several years
| before the real thing.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| 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.
| jasonfarnon wrote:
| in other words, we need their false negative rate
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _we need their false negative rate_
|
| We have it. It's almost 100%. They've been threatening
| WWIII and nuclear armageddon since 2022.
| severino wrote:
| 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.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _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".
| Supermancho wrote:
| Was probably the ones who didn't want to be on the hook
| for their end of the contract being violated by _not_
| sending resources down the pipeline.
| okasaki wrote:
| 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.
| geysersam wrote:
| > He said it would be "ended", meaning the one thing that
| it obviously means -- that it would be shut off.
|
| When Biden said that he was talking next to the person
| with the power to legally shut it off, the German
| chancellor. If he and Biden were in agreement on that
| point, that Nord Stream would be shut off if Russia
| invaded Ukraine, why did Biden say that explicitly but
| not Scholz, even after being asked directly by the
| journalists present? If they were not in agreement on
| that point, how could Biden promise that they would put
| an end to it?
|
| > The reasonable, level-headed people said: "We just
| don't know yet".
|
| Agreed.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _If they were not in agreement on that point, how could
| Biden promise that they would put an end to it?_
|
| Typical politician nonsense.
|
| None of which means he was intending, or suggesting the
| idea of actually blowing it up.
| tptacek wrote:
| I believe at this point we have a pretty good guess as to
| who sabotaged the pipeline, and it wasn't the US.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| Who is we and please enlighten me.
| baq wrote:
| The peaceful Russian Baltic research fleet is doing research,
| nothing to see here.
| tyfon wrote:
| Between mainland Norway and Svalbard.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40484591
| mopsi wrote:
| Swedish telco Telia reports that the undersea internet cable
| between Sweden and Lithuania was also damaged on Sunday:
| https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2416006/undersea-ca...
| leshokunin wrote:
| The constant Russian interference, combined with the regular
| escalation from the jets patrolling, and the radar jamming,
| really needs to be dealt with.
|
| We're stuck between having to do timid actions and full NATO
| escalation. This feels like constant creep.
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| I have read reams of rhetoric regarding relations with Russia
| rehashed as "don't poke the bear".
|
| No one ever seems to want to discuss what to do about the bear
| going around poking everyone else.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Those discussions are had all the time. One of downside of
| this bear is bear strapped with explosives that could kill us
| all if bear gets angry enough.
|
| Also, once you are 12 miles offshore, technically you are in
| international waters and thus cannot be stopped by any Navy
| except your own unless there is UN Sanctions. If NATO
| Countries decided to violate that, it obviously opens up
| massive can of worms that could impact worldwide trade.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| That's a good point, there's no formal mechanism to punish
| any country that has 'anchor accidents' 12.1 nm offshore.
|
| It's probably not even a de jure crime, so what is there to
| punish on the record?
| echoangle wrote:
| In what country is intentional property destruction not a
| crime? You're not arguing that it's really accidental,
| right?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _technically you are in international waters and thus
| cannot be stopped by any Navy except your own unless there
| is UN Sanctions_
|
| What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates?
|
| > _it obviously opens up massive can of worms that could
| impact worldwide trade_
|
| No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of war.
| Practically, they'd just be arrested.
| stackskipton wrote:
| >What? No? How do you think we arraign pirates?
|
| Because piracy is one of exceptions to "No stopping not
| your flag ships in international waters."
|
| Here is list of exception: (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 flag or refusing to show its flag, the
| ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the
| warship.
|
| https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/
| unc...
|
| >No? Why? Worst case it would be considered an act of
| war. Practically, they'd just be arrested.
|
| So under which clause would you like to stop Russian
| ships cutting cables in international waters?
|
| UNCLOS does have this provision around submarine cables:
| Every State shall adopt the laws and regulations
| necessary to provide that the breaking or injury by a
| ship flying its flag or by a person subject to its
| jurisdiction of a submarine cable beneath the high seas
| done wilfully or through culpable negligence, in such a
| manner as to be liable to interrupt or obstruct
| telegraphic or telephonic communications, and similarly
| the breaking or injury of a submarine pipeline or high-
| voltage power cable, shall be a punishable offence. This
| provision shall apply also to conduct calculated or
| likely to result in such breaking or injury. However, it
| shall not apply to any break or injury caused by persons
| who acted merely with the legitimate object of saving
| their lives or their ships, after having taken all
| necessary precautions to avoid such break or injury
|
| But Russia is obviously ignoring the rules so now what?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _So under which clause would you like to stop Russian
| ships cutting cables in international waters?_
|
| Piracy. Duh. That or you'd break the treaty. (Like China
| has been [1].)
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_China_Sea_Arbitration
| ocatzzz wrote:
| You are evidently unaware of UNCLOS and the adoption of
| many of its provisions into customary international law
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Also the practical reality of countries not giving a shit
| about any of that when someone starts breaking their
| shit. There is a reason Russia is knocking out European
| lines while leaving American ones alone.
| stackskipton wrote:
| 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
| flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in
| reality, of the same nationality as the warship
|
| Which one would you like to use to board and/or force the
| ship to depart against Russian cable cutting ships?
| ocatzzz wrote:
| 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".
| maxglute wrote:
| High Seas "international water" start at after 200 nautical
| mile EEZ. There's a few explicit articles dealing with
| malicious submarine cable damage.
|
| But IIRC the TLDR is it has to do with indemnities and
| putting a vessel/person up for prosecution after the fact.
| And it doesn't apply if cable damaged while trying to
| prevent injury, which RU can always claim.
|
| More broadly I think you're correct on paper... RU damaging
| subsea infra is under UNCLOS is technically punishable, but
| after the fact. And they're not going to lol pay damages to
| countries that sanction them. NATO kinetically trying to
| prevent RU damaging subsea infra (especially in highseas),
| in lieu of formal UN policing mission against such acts, is
| closer to act of war.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| NATO kinetically trying to prevent Russia from damaging
| subsea infrastructure WITH a formal UN policing mission
| is also an act of war, its just more clearly not an act
| of _aggression_.
|
| Of course, that would also be true of NATO doing so as
| part of a broader collective defense operation reported
| to the Security Council, directed against Russia and
| explicitly aimed at rolling back the Russian (UNGA-
| condemned) aggression in Ukraine under Article 51 of the
| UN Charter.
| exceptione wrote:
| The bear metaphore is indeed nonsense. Russia is not a bear,
| you are dealing with a bunch of state level criminals.
| The state of Russia is essentially better understood as a
| criminal gang masquerading as a country.
|
| Those stealing, money laundering, killing, trafficking an
| warring circles of oligarchs are heavily rooted in
| Intelligence Services, inside and abroad. Some of those
| oligarchs even have private militaries.
|
| Those people primarily care for themselves. They know they
| can get away with a ton of insane and inhuman shit, as they
| calculate the other well-behaving party will back off. They
| however do not want to get nuclear consequences themselves,
| it is pure bluff.
| abraxas wrote:
| The real problem starts if (when?) Trump and his clown
| posse turns the US into a similar setup.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _problem starts if (when?) Trump and his clown posse
| turns the US into a similar setup_
|
| Lots of institutional checks in America that post-Soviet
| Russia lacked.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Trump now controls all of them.
|
| He said he _has a mandate_.
|
| I really don't know what you're talking about when he or
| his party control the governors, congress, the senate,
| the presidency, and the Supreme Court.
|
| America is about to speedrun some things and you won't
| like it.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Trump now controls all of them_
|
| No, he doesn't. The GOP narrowly controls the House and
| Senate, and Trump has strong influence over them. That
| doesn't mean he controls them. And that's before we get
| to the states and lower courts.
| SauciestGNU wrote:
| The courts are effectively captured at every level,
| because Trump can scribble a writ of cert on a McDonald's
| napkin and SCOTUS will grant cert and provide the desired
| outcome. The playbook across the country will be the
| same, mark my words. The fascists will file motions for
| changes of venue out of state courts with integrity and
| into captured federal courts.
| buran77 wrote:
| > Lots of institutional checks
|
| You're right but given enough time of the "right" type of
| people entrenching their power (which of course may not
| be "one term" but that could be enough to put things on a
| path), and even the best of checks and defense mechanisms
| start to evaporate or just become a tool against what
| they were intended to defend.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _given enough time of the "right" type of people
| entrenching their power, and even the best of checks and
| defense mechanisms start to evaporate or just become a
| tool against what they were intended to defend_
|
| Sure. If the GOP sweeps the midterms and 2028, and also
| seizes most legislatures and governships, and they all
| remain loyal to Trump, we will see a situation resembling
| post-Yeltsin Russia.
| sofixa wrote:
| A lot of those checks exist solely on paper, and the
| people who should be enacting them can't look paat their
| noses in grift/short term political profit to do their
| jobs (be they senate majority leaders or supreme court
| justices or regular lawmakers). Hell, Trump refused to
| cede control of his businesses to a blind trust, and
| profited extensively (billing the state for his secret
| service detail having to stay at his resort while he's
| golfing) and used it to funnel money (various foreign
| entities paid obscene amounts of money to stay in his
| properties). Even just the last one should have been
| utterly disqualifying from an ethics perspective, and
| yet...
|
| A coup was attempted (doesn't matter how poorly or clown-
| like, the intent is all that matters). Influence and
| favours were sold to other countries. None of this had
| any impact, even if the "checks" should have resulted in
| treason sentences.
| rainingmonkey wrote:
| Without knowing any of the individuals involve, this
| intuitively seems like a useful model to predict the
| actions of the state.
|
| I wonder how effective the technique would be for the US
| government and our own oligarchs?
| sofixa wrote:
| > The bear metaphore is indeed nonsense. Russia is not a
| bear, you are dealing with a bunch of state level criminals
|
| With nukes, which makes them pretty scary.
| meiraleal wrote:
| You know, NATO reason to exists is to unite a front against
| Russia. Russia uniting itself against NATO is not less noble
| than that. Maybe if you guys really think you are much better
| than Russia that it has no rights to fight back then go there
| and invade it. History tells that's not wise but sometimes loud
| people only understand when words are delivered forcefully.
| georgeecollins wrote:
| The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a conflict
| was in Afghanistan after 911. So no, it is not only because
| of Russia.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Yugoslavia?
| VagabundoP wrote:
| That was not a NATO action.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Yes, it was [1].
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia
| PKop wrote:
| Why do you say that?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| I'm not sure if you are referring to the NATO
| intervention in the first part of the wars as Yugoslavia
| broke up (Bosnia, primarily starting in 1992) or later
| (the NATO-Yugoslavia war over Kosovo, starting 1999) or
| layer yet (the NATO involvement in the internal conflict
| of then-NATO partner North Macedonia in 2001), but all
| three were official NATO operations (and listed as such
| on NATO's website.)
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a
| conflict was in Afghanistan after 911.
|
| False. NATO Command led the bombing of Libya in 2011
| (taking over from the French).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector
|
| You can search for "NATO Libya Lessons" and get a ton of
| articles by analysts, many published in US military
| journals and/or written by US think tanks on the subject.
| For example, here's one from RAND:
|
| https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2014/11/natos-
| campaign-...
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The only time NATO has actually gotten involved in a
| conflict was in Afghanistan after 911.
|
| No, it's not; 9/11 was the only event that has led to
| invocation of the mutual defense commitments under Article
| 5.
|
| It has, however, gotten involved in other conflicts, both
| in response to UN calls and as a result of regional
| security consultations under Article 4. These include, most
| notably, Libya beginning 2011, Kosovo beginning in 1999,
| and Bosnia beginning in 1992,
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Ukraine?
| switchbak wrote:
| Should Russia "fight back"? Did NATO aligned countries cross
| multiple red lines with too much provocation? ... This has
| been argued to death, and I'm not wasting my time on that
| here.
|
| Were it not for the nuclear concern, Russia could be
| dispatched by a modern military in short order. They're
| having enough of a challenge with Ukraine. Against a real
| military with SEAD/DEAD, you would witness an Iraq 1991-style
| collapse within weeks, perhaps less.
|
| Of course, the problem is the nukes. Which is exactly why you
| see these countries work so hard to get them.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > Against a real military with SEAD/DEAD, you would witness
| an Iraq 1991-style collapse within weeks, perhaps less
|
| _Other than the US_....can you name some "real militaries
| with SEAD/DEAD" that actually have deep enough ordnance
| stockpiles, sufficient basing/aerial refueling to support a
| sustained air campaign against a country as large and well-
| equipped as Russia, etc..?
| polotics wrote:
| 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 appropriate response is to hold all
| responsible individuals accountable. Eventually the lower
| ranks will understand that playing along to Old-man-putin's
| tune of death won't bring them closer to anything but grief.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > Nato is a defensive alliance against any offensive act.
|
| See my response to sibling comment:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42177029
|
| Which NATO member was NATO defending when it bombed Libya
| into oblivion?
| meiraleal wrote:
| > The appropriate response is to hold all responsible
| individuals accountable. Eventually the lower ranks will
| understand that playing along to Old-man-putin's tune of
| death won't bring them closer to anything but grief.
|
| lower ranks and the whole Russian society knows what await
| them if they let NATO corrupt them (again). The western
| tone against Russia is quite interesting from the POV of
| someone from the "global south". Western racism against
| anything not Caucasian shapes its international relations
| for the past 500 years if not more. But still, Russians get
| the same dehumanizing treatment that western culture
| usually apply to Africans, Asians and native Americans. How
| dare they not do what we tell them!
|
| Lucky Russia to have the strength to make their enemies
| fear them.
| mantas wrote:
| Coming from eastern europe... To us russia is the
| coloniser to us. What ,,West" did in ,,global south",
| russia just did the same to its neighbors. Even including
| racisty-chauvinisty element.
|
| Unfortunately russia has the strength to rape & pillage
| through neighbors once in a while.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| > Lucky Russia to have the strength to make their enemies
| fear them.
|
| Russia has enemies because for centuries it has attacked
| its neighbours repeatedly.
|
| And then imposed its own idea of peace that involves
| tanks rolling through Budapest and soldiers executing
| students and poets.
|
| Tiananmen square shocked the world, but that kind of
| behaviour was already familiar to Eastern Europeans. It
| was the same old song, different orchestra.
|
| Russia is not your friend, no matter what the propaganda
| tells you and your countrymen.
|
| You're just momentarily useful to a warlike mafia
| controlling a country.
| Delk wrote:
| > Russia has enemies because for centuries it has
| attacked its neighbours repeatedly.
|
| To be fair, historically Russia has also been a target of
| attacks and invasions repeatedly. (Generally not by the
| same smaller neighbours it has been attacking, of
| course.)
|
| That history has nothing to do with the present-day
| conflict, though, except that it might be a part of what
| gives some Russians a feeling of being threatened. And
| Soviet-style aggression is of course just imperialism by
| any other name.
| Delk wrote:
| > How dare they not do what we tell them!
|
| What has NATO (or Western Europe) told Russia to do? What
| is NATO threatening or attacking Russia with due to it
| not doing what NATO wants?
| aguaviva wrote:
| _How dare they not do what we tell them!_
|
| No one is telling Russia (meaning its current
| authoritarian regime) to do anything.
|
| Other than to pick up its toys, and get back to its own
| yard.
|
| And stay there, this time.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| Ironically(?), Russia's racism tends to dehumanize
| Caucasians.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_genocide
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_genocide
| rurp wrote:
| You seem confused about which country invaded another and
| kicked off a major war in Eastern Europe.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than
| Russia that it has no rights to fight back then go there and
| invade it.
|
| Priceless. Naturally, the only way to prove Russia wrong
| about NATO aggression is to prove them right about NATO
| aggression.
| bdjsiqoocwk wrote:
| > Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than
| Russia that it has no rights to fight back then go there and
| invade it
|
| We don't want to invade Russia. In fact, we don't think about
| Russia at all.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > You know, NATO reason to exists is to unite a front against
| Russia
|
| That's not what NATO says: "NATO's essential and enduring
| purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its
| members. It does this through political and military means,
| ensuring the collective defence of all Allies, against all
| threats, from all directions. [...] NATO strives to secure a
| lasting peace in Europe and North America, based on its
| member countries' common values of individual liberty,
| democracy, human rights and the rule of law."
|
| https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_68144.htm
|
| Furthermore, I would suggest that the history of actual NATO
| action, particularly since "Russia" came back into existence
| as a sovereign entity not under the umbrella of the USSR, is
| more consistent with the offically-stated purpose than "to
| unite a front against Russia."
|
| It's true that in the last decade or so Russia has become, as
| the USSR had been for most of NATO's existence, the primary
| _threat_ to NATO's purpose.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _Maybe if you guys really think you are much better than
| Russia that it has no rights to fight back_
|
| Which absolutely no one thinks.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Close Oresund to Russian ships, put mines Gulf of Finland as
| start. Maybe a strategic nuke on Kaliningrad if any provocation
| happens.
| grapesodaaaaa wrote:
| > Maybe a strategic nuke on Kaliningrad if any provocation
| happens.
|
| Surely you must be joking about a first-strike nuclear
| provocation or larger. I would think almost anything other
| than a border incursion could be dealt with in other ways.
|
| Should Putin be held more accountable for his actions?
| Absolutely, but a nuclear response is not going to go well
| unless absolutely justified.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| You are replying to a Russian bot, most likely.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Interesting twist...
|
| I chose "provocation" because thats what russians often
| use (and call for nuking west pretty much every day for
| decades now).
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Fear is the greatest weapon. You can keep sanctioning them,
| but you'll never get anywhere.
|
| Give nukes to Ukraine, even pretend ones and war will end
| in minutes.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Imagine an enraged man ready to punch an aggressor in the
| face being held back by his friends.
|
| You propose to walk up to him, have him released and give
| him a loaded gun.
|
| The world would blame you, not the wound up man itching
| for revenge.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Highly doubt.
| pavlov wrote:
| Putin is old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis
| of 1962, when their side actually tried this and had to
| back down.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Give nukes to Ukraine, even pretend ones and war will
| end in minutes_
|
| This is the wrong answer. But it's clear non-
| proliferation has failed. If Ukraine had kept its nukes
| from the 90s, this wouldn't have happened. It would have
| had the ability to credibly threaten that it had reverse
| engineered the arming mechanisms.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| My understanding is that they were always in Russian
| control, kind of like how the US keeps nuclear assets at
| overseas bases.
|
| Not only did the Russians have the codes, but they had
| soldiers in physical control with the ability to scuttle
| the devices.
| thinkingtoilet wrote:
| I agree. Do you want to sign up and go fight in a war? Or
| should other people besides you die? It's easy to say it "needs
| to be dealt with" but it's not an easy thing to do.
| leshokunin wrote:
| I lived in Finland most of my adult life. Gladly. Freedom
| isn't free, I understand that
| nazgob wrote:
| Some of us live close enough that it's not really an option,
| surrendering to Russians don't work that great if you live in
| Eastern Europe. I will volunteer first day to join Polish
| Army.
| abraxas wrote:
| Ditto. Even though I'm an expat right now if Poland calls
| to arms I'm coming home and fighting to defend my country.
| ocular-rockular wrote:
| It's never an easy thing to do or one that should come to
| fruition, but yes, I would contribute to the effort for my
| country if it was so.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| If you would have asked me while I was a young Marine I'd
| say, "hell yes." I recall the commandant visiting in
| Afghanistan and Marines were asking him where the next combat
| zone is because they are eager for more action.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Or should other people besides you die?_
|
| Yes. We literally have a country willing to do this for us if
| we give them the weapons.
|
| Otherwise, a country whose population is unwilling to fight
| for itself isn't a country, just a convenient demarcation on
| a map.
| Hamuko wrote:
| Living in a country next to Russia, it basically feels more
| and more likely that I will actually have to participate in a
| war effort. Not really sure how since I have not undergone
| military training, but it's definitely something to keep in
| mind these days.
| petre wrote:
| Best course of action at this time would be to properly arm
| Ukraine.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| It's the right thing to do anyway, but especially as a way to
| respond to Russia.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Which happened and kept happening for a long time now,
| including the US sending billions of dollars and weapons
| (among other things). That did not help, did it?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| johnisgood wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| Hamuko wrote:
| 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.
| jonplackett wrote:
| The USA is a giant ocean away in any direction from any
| meaningful threat. No-one is invading the USA. Everyone
| will be nuked to oblivion before that would ever come to
| pass.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| No, but it's a good way to put some fear in our NATO
| allies and it is a good way to waste a bunch of Russian
| resources.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like? The
| entire Western world doesn't produce enough Patriot missiles
| to meet Ukraine's air defense needs, just as one critical
| example. We are aiming for a global production target of 750
| missiles/year ( https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15354795
| ).... Russia has fired about 6,000 missiles and large drones
| per year ( https://kyivindependent.com/defense-ministry-
| over-2-000-russ... ).
|
| You can send Ukraine all of the F-16s in the world, it won't
| matter if there aren't enough Ukrainian pilots with the
| linguistic skills to get them through the Western training
| pipelines.
|
| The reality is that the West can't make the math work at a
| level of commitment/investment that it is willing to accept.
| To say nothing of the steadily-worsening problem of "lack of
| living, breathing Ukrainian men _willing_ to do the fighting
| in the first place "...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What exactly would "properly" arming Ukraine look like?_
|
| More long-range offensive weapons and clearance to hit
| sites in Russia. Let Israel know that we wouldn't mind them
| taking out the Iranian drone factories supplying Russia.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Even the pentagons own assessments say this won't make
| much difference.
| jonplackett wrote:
| Can't believe I had to scroll so for the first comment
| based on reality and not wishful thinking.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _We 're stuck between having to do timid actions and full
| NATO escalation_
|
| If only there were someone applying pressure to Russia we could
| have fight for us!
| PKop wrote:
| So sacrifice more Ukrainian men for the meat grinder? What
| has that accomplished so far?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _sacrifice more Ukrainian men for the meat grinder?_
|
| To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians [1].
|
| > _What has that accomplished so far?_
|
| Russia's disqualifying itself as a conventional military
| threat for at least a generation. It's not yet there yet,
| largely because Ukraine has been unable to target its war
| marchine. But the startling inefficacy of its army and
| technology has been made clear. Moreover, the front line
| has been maintained in Ukraine: that keeps them further
| from NATO and thus American and European boys at home.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-
| Ukrain...
| aguaviva wrote:
| _To the extent there 's a meat grinder, it's of
| Russians._
|
| That seems unfair. It's _more_ of a meat grinder for the
| aggressor, but it 's also one for the Ukrainians, by all
| indications.
| PKop wrote:
| >To the extent there's a meat grinder, it's of Russians
|
| It's of both. Why deny the fact Ukrainian men are dying
| in droves? This is disrespectful of those that paid the
| ultimate sacrifice. Pretending this is not extremely
| costly to Ukraine in manpower is denying reality. They
| have been increasing the age of conscripts as they're
| running out of young men.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Why deny the fact Ukrainian men are dying in droves?_
|
| Nobody is. Meat grinder means excessive loss relative to
| necessity. The Ukranians are being slaughtered, but not
| mindlessly. They're fighting efficiently in respect of
| manpower.
|
| Also, had we given Ukraine all the weapons it asked for
| in 2022, we probably wouldn't have had a meat grinder.
| maximilianburke wrote:
| And, hence, we should give them all the arms and tools
| they need and the freedom to use them to end it quickly.
| The dithering on behalf of Biden and Scholz is what's
| prolonging this.
| barrenko wrote:
| Well currently ensuring happy holidays for the western-er
| part of Europe.
| marssaxman wrote:
| What business is that of ours? It's up to the Ukrainians
| what they are willing to do in defense of their country.
| PKop wrote:
| >we could have fight for us
|
| C'mon. Their funding is entirely US dependent. What
| business is that of ours? We are enabling it. How could
| you possibly ask the question "what business is that of
| ours"? Explain yourself, that question is absurd.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What business is that of ours? We are enabling it._
|
| They clearly want to fight! This is like arguing giving
| someone chemo is enabling their cancer.
| PKop wrote:
| Who is "they" and what is "clearly"? They are running out
| of men they can find to fight, and for quite a while the
| government and military used very aggressive methods to
| force men into service. There is a huge desertion
| problem, in the military and the country itself. A whole
| lot of Ukrainians _do not_ want to fight.
|
| https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ukraine-running-
| out-s...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Who is "they" and what is "clearly"?_
|
| Who do you think?
|
| > _A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight_
|
| Yes, there is not unanimous agreement on a big political
| question. Shocking. By this measure, nobody should ever
| fight for everything.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _A whole lot of Ukrainians do not want to fight._
|
| A whole lot of people don't want to fight in _any_ war.
|
| What matters is the _relative portion_. Though they my
| differ in the views as to whether the lost regions can be
| regained, or on what terms a cease-fire may be acceptable
| -- by all indications, a very solid majority of the
| society in non-occupied Ukraine supports the fight.
|
| _Who is "they" and what is "clearly"?_
|
| About 60-80 percent of the population. "Clearly" as in
| according to reliable polling data I can pull up later.
| Or by spending any amount of time talking to Ukrainians.
|
| _There is a huge desertion problem,_
|
| It is obviously a significant problem, but a better
| source is needed on the "huge" part. The link you
| provided does not support that view.
|
| If I hear "desertion is a huge problem", what comes to
| mind it the situation in Afghanstan after the notorious
| Trump-Biden pullout. The situation in Ukraine is nothing
| like that, not even remotely.
| maximilianburke wrote:
| Given that Russia is invading them and that they are
| showing no reluctance to stand up to them, yes? Arm them,
| give them everything they need without restriction and
| Russia will be sent home to their borders, bloodied and
| cowed.
| jerlam wrote:
| From history: "Flexible Response" was a policy implemented by
| JFK in 1961, in response to previous administration's over-
| reliance on massive retaliation.
|
| Of course, it dragged the United States into Vietnam as things
| slowly escalated.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| 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 Russia is going to nuclear warfare over not being
| able to unevenly harass NATO, because we can't read Putin and
| the oligarchs' minds, and what objective measure would allow
| that but not allow Russia to go nuclear warfare over not
| enslaving all of NATO, or claiming they can/others can't do
| everything not written unambiguously in a treaty (which would
| extend to new technologies like partitioning the solar system
| that we couldn't have thought ahead-of-time)?
|
| But I'm no diplomat, so maybe I'm wrong and my idea would be
| catastrophic.
| fuoqi wrote:
| >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 diplomat.
|
| Should I remind you how US reacted to the Soviet military
| presence in Cuba? On the US scale Ukraine is somewhere
| between Mexico and Texas in importance for Russia from the
| military point of view.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| 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.
| fuoqi wrote:
| So according to this principle, Russia can send military
| aid to the Syrian government to strike the US military
| bases on its territory and the US should not be able to
| retaliate?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Or station nukes in Venezuela
| armchairhacker wrote:
| In that case the US would be allowed to send aid to some
| other government to strike Russia (they're currently
| doing this with Ukraine but for a separate reason, for
| Ukraine's self-defense...)
|
| Or in an ideal world, the US pays Syria more to not
| attack them, maybe even gets them to sign a treaty and
| commits to building Syria's economy and protecting them
| so they don't feel compelled to take Russian bribes.
| Although, it's certainly not so straightforward, prior US
| involvements in foreign countries have been disasters so
| it would have to be different somehow...
|
| There are many other ways Russia could attack NATO that
| would be very hard to prove or evenly-counter. Russia
| could create a culture of NATO hatred and aggression,
| then set up "rewards" that are given out for obscure
| reasons, to get Russian NGOs and citizens to attack NATO
| in their own will. Then NATO can only encourage citizens
| to attack Russia, which I don't think any treaties forbid
| anyways, and creating a culture of hate is bad for other
| reasons. It's not a foolproof system.
|
| But like for this event, there's evidence beyond
| reasonable doubt that the Russian government is directly
| involved (https://www.newsweek.com/russia-pipeline-gas-
| patrushev-putin...). And there are other ways NATO can
| weaken Russia's influence without even attacking them,
| like not trading with them, and (indirectly, by having a
| more liberal government) encouraging Russian citizens to
| emigrate.
| staplung wrote:
| 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 figure out whether the
| damage looks like sabotage before they sever the cable to repair
| it. Of course, if you're a bad actor and want plausible
| deniability, maybe you'd make it _look_ like anchor damage or,
| deliberately drag an anchor right over the cables.
|
| Cable repairs are certainly annoying and for the operator of the
| cable, expensive. However, they are usually repaired relatively
| quickly. I'd be more worried if many more cables were severed at
| the same time. If you're only going to break one or two a year,
| you might as well not bother.
|
| 1: https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-
| undersea...
| Etheryte wrote:
| 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.
| foobarqux wrote:
| Predictable blowback and it's only going to get worse.
| waihtis wrote:
| Btw last time they damaged the finnish cables it was a chinese
| merchant vessel. Not just russians doing sabotage at the baltic
| sea
| Hamuko wrote:
| Russians could've also been involved in that since Newnew Polar
| Bear was en route to Russia.
| euroderf wrote:
| So what's the solution ? Assign a surveillance UAV to every
| Russian ship parked "without a good reason" over a cable ? It
| would be expensive, but doable, and create a reserve of vehicles
| for wartime use.
| lxgr wrote:
| That sounds borderline feasible - in a world where submarines
| don't exist.
| regnull wrote:
| The solution is to project strength and hit them where they
| don't expect. You are dealing with a thug, not a cost/benefit
| accountant, as Obama seemed to mistakenly believe. As long as
| they do things and we respond, nothing good will happen. They
| have already calculated the response and found it acceptable.
| Instead of this, go to the mattresses. Oh, your bridge has
| suddenly exploded? Shame.
| petre wrote:
| "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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _what 's left?_
|
| The other pipelines. Their shadow oil fleet. There are lots
| of options. But to my knowledge, only the British, French
| and Americans are capable of the long-range clandestine
| operations.
| petre wrote:
| 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...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| baq wrote:
| yeah just count the cases of unprovoked attacks on
| gazprom-related people by open windows.
| Hamuko wrote:
| According to CNN reporting, the US is already keeping track of
| Russian ships near critical submarine infrastructure. Chances
| are that they already have a prime suspect as to what ship or
| ships have been engaged in this.
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/us-sees-increasi...
| zelon88 wrote:
| It's just practice. Locate the cables, establish a means of
| damaging them, deploy the means as a test and a show of force.
|
| The western economy is almost completely built using off-prem in
| Cloud PaaS environments. It should be pretty fun when WW3 starts
| and not a single hospital, school, laboratory, or factory can
| operate.
| lxgr wrote:
| It also sends two messages: "We can do this to any of your
| cables", and "we're willing to" - with an implied "we could
| easily do it to all of them at the same time".
|
| And the last scenario is the real problem: While there are
| enough cable repair ships to continuously handle a normal rate
| of simultaneous peak failures, fixing multiple cuts can quickly
| exceed their capacity. (There's nothing that says an attacker
| can only cut the same cable in one spot!)
| azeirah wrote:
| The Russian oligarchs can go fuck themselves.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| You act like the west doesn't have equally as evil
| oligarchs.
| azeirah wrote:
| All Oligarchs can go seriously fuck themselves.
| jjeaff wrote:
| while outages definitely cause big problems in hospitals and
| schools, neither are completely dependent on connectivity in
| the short term. most hospitals are required to be able to
| operate critical services in an outage. even a full power
| outage. Schools will definitely be fine. they just may have a
| serious backlog of entering grades, absences, and payroll once
| things get back online.
| zelon88 wrote:
| > once things get back online.
|
| That would be like trying to cold start a power plant without
| any power.
|
| I think you're missing my point. I'm trying to point out that
| there are 3 "infrastructure providers" that our economy
| CANNOT live without. In a world war situation, these 3
| organizations are going to be the biggest targets. They are
| literally our crown jewels.
|
| They will be under continuous attack from all angles. As we
| know with security, it is a game of time. Even the strongest
| bank safe has a rating in hours that it can resist direct
| tampering. Beyond that time rating the safe offers little to
| no protection. It is the layers of security that keep the
| safe from being tampered with beyond its rating.
|
| What I'm saying is, no target can be secured with 100%
| security guarantee. Even the most secure systems will fail if
| met with a concerted attacker with unlimited resources.
|
| If WW3 starts, we will lose Azure, AWS, and GCP within 5 days
| and it will be more or less completely destroyed within 30
| days. They won't survive concerted attacks from nation state
| actors during war time.
|
| Even if they can't be hacked, they will be physically
| destroyed with kinetic weapons. There is no Bitdefender plan
| that will save them from warheads.
| 20after4 wrote:
| Worry more about the power grid.
| sofixa wrote:
| > If WW3 starts, we will lose Azure, AWS, and GCP within 5
| days and it will be more or less completely destroyed
| within 30 days. They won't survive concerted attacks from
| nation state actors during war time.
|
| The same probably applies to moist mainstream (public)
| datacenters. Only ones that will be safe-ish would be
| something like Scaleway's underground nuclear
| bunker/datacenter.
| sofixa wrote:
| > The western economy is almost completely built using off-prem
| in Cloud PaaS environments
|
| US and lesser extent UK. Companies in France, Germany, Spain,
| Italy are much less likely to use public cloud providers,
| especially for critical (customer data, critical for the
| business, etc.) services. Not that it doesn't exist, one of the
| premier health tech startups in Europe, Doctolib, is full AWS;
| but it's rarer and much less prevalent.
|
| Source: I work in a US tech company and cover EMEA, and compare
| notes with American colleagues.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > "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 not doing anything. So the Russians
| can follow a similar route: a cable torn here, a warehouse blows
| up there, maybe a bank website is hacked, water supply or power
| station company blows up "randomly". Is anyone going to launch
| nuclear bombs because of that? That's absurd, of course not, yet
| NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process.
|
| Ideally, these countries should ramp up similar acts of sabotage
| on the Russian territory if they confirmed that's exactly who it
| is. A dam fails in Siberia, maybe the payment system goes down
| for a week, a submarine catches on fire while in port for
| repairs. Honestly I don't think they have the guts to do that.
|
| Some regimes only speak the language of power. They have to be
| believably threatened; calling them on phone to chat and beg for
| them to behave, is just showing more weakness. Scholz just called
| Putin. Anyone remember Macron talking with Putin for tens of
| hours at the start of the war? A lot of good that did. When they
| see a credible fist in front of their nose, that's the only way
| they'll stop.
| azeirah wrote:
| 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 destabilising our peaceful
| politics over the past 20 years.
|
| 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.
|
| And yes, I _am_ mad. I am 100% going to protect the EU. What we
| have and what we had is beautiful, and my Russian friends and
| my Ukrainian friends deserve better.
|
| I am picking up math, Nix, ML, geopolitics, nature, sports and
| more because of these idiots in Russia. And I'm exactly what
| they fear most. A transgender person.
|
| I'm so, so done with Putin and Lukachenko's BS.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > 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-cc61f6
| d01...
|
| > If we'd known then what we know now, we would of course
| have acted differently
| azeirah wrote:
| > 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.
| Delk wrote:
| 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 popular thing to do given the circumstances.
| (Countries in Eastern Europe were perhaps the exception and
| didn't cut back, at least not so much.)
|
| The problem is that defensive capability cannot be just built
| all of a sudden if it turns out to be needed after all.
|
| Of course the reason that has become a problem is Putin's
| aggression and authoritarian rule.
|
| But Europe has indeed been weak in the sense of not having
| maintained defensive capability. Perhaps that is, both
| fortunately and unfortunately, changing. (Fortunately for
| obvious reasons, unfortunately because it means significant
| spending on something that _should_ not be necessary even
| though it is.)
|
| Hopefully EU societies will remain strong and resilient in
| the sense they've been strong all along: strong civil society
| and democracy.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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/ukraine-
| russ...
| fuoqi wrote:
| 13th largest backed by the whole NATO and other US-aligned
| countries. They send almost everything they can outside of
| nuclear weapons, the most cutting edge military tech, and
| people (well, outside of a limited contingent of "advisors").
| Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended
| in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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 systems are downing their latest
| weapons. Meanwhile, our generations-old missiles are taking
| out their state-of-the-art systems.
|
| To the degree Russia has been able to claim any victory,
| it's in not being demolished. That's the standard. Not
| winning. Simply surviving.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_U
| krain...
| fuoqi wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| fuoqi wrote:
| The Russian military doctrine is quite different from the
| US one. It places far more importance on artillery and
| anti-air forces than on air superiority. The Russian army
| clearly sucks at maneuver warfare and together with the
| unrealistically optimistic views which were prevalent in
| the Russian government (read Putin), it explains
| perfectly well the extremely poor performance in the
| first months. The performance in the recent months shows
| results of a more "comfortable" for the Russian army mode
| of warfare.
|
| Also note that the Russian army was not "fully
| committed", it was not using conscripts (there was a
| small scale deployment of conscripts, but after the
| public scandal they were quickly removed from Ukraine)
| and did not fully pull forces from all its military
| districts.
|
| Meanwhile Ukraine was fighting in the total war mode from
| the first days (they do not pull "recruits" from streets
| in the broad daylight into military buses just for the
| fun of it) with huge external support. And having the
| well trained by the West ideologically charged army
| backbone with 8 years of practical warfare experience has
| helped immensely in the first months.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _The direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul
| accords._
|
| Which is a myth - oft repeated, but with precisely zero
| substance.
|
| See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813032
| fuoqi wrote:
| Zero substance? It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda (and
| Ukraine is far from being famous for its freedom of
| press) not by some Russian propaganda outlet. It's the
| same as saying that WSJ citing "sources" has zero
| substance.
|
| Regardless, you can believe that the West did not provide
| any assurance to Ukraine during the Istanbul talks and
| that Russia has blown its own pipeline. It's your right.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda_
|
| It was speculated as a possibility by that article, but
| then it was looked into by others, quite thoroughly, and
| the narrative fell apart. That happens, you know.
|
| The Foreign Affairs article in the aforementioned thread
| has a pretty good writeup about the whole thing, if you
| are interested.
|
| _You can believe that Russia has blown its own pipeline_
|
| You can change the subject as many times as you want, and
| speculate about what you think other people believe about
| random topics, all day long if you want. But it has
| absolutely no bearing on what we were just talking about.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > 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
|
| > The German leader called on Putin to withdraw Russian
| troops from Ukraine ...
|
| [1] https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-scholz-calls-putin-for-
| first-...
|
| That might look like a "power move" by Germany but it looks
| absolutely weak in the eyes of Putin.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > That might look like a "power move" by Germany but it
| looks absolutely weak in the eyes of Putin
|
| Calling and talking with Putin as acting as some kind of
| "power broker" or "decider" (Bush junior's classic). I
| think that's the context there. That's after years of
| hand wringing, should we help, or shouldn't help, maybe
| help, but not too much and so on.
|
| > Europe has been weak. The difference is Russia is weak
| while trying its hardest. Europe is weak because it can't
| bother to try
|
| I agree, and I don't know if now it finally woke up or it
| hasn't yet. It's not over till it's over, as they say.
| fuoqi wrote:
| Looks like a pretty transparent hint on how response to the
| recent US/UK/France permission to use long-range missiles against
| the Russian territory could look like. The Nord Stream sabotage
| has opened Pandora's box almost exactly how it was predicted in
| Cryptonomicon.
| fuoqi wrote:
| It's like 3rd or 4th submission of this news today? One of the
| previous discussions:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42175676
| dang wrote:
| Thanks! We've merged that thread hither.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42172565
| dang wrote:
| Merged hither. Thanks!
| gweinberg wrote:
| I'm surprised there's such a cable in the first place, it seems
| it would be easier to go on land through Denmark and Sweden. Is
| it for some reason easier to have an undersea cable than a land
| one?
| graeme wrote:
| You can see an undersea cable map here. I don't know about
| cables specifically but:
|
| 1. Anything sea based tends to be cheaper than land based, both
| in terms of sea transport and also lack of other interfering
| infrastructure, homes etc along the way
|
| 2. Shorter distance means lower latency
|
| 3. There surely is a land cable too. There's a lot of redunancy
| in the system
|
| https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
| V__ wrote:
| Just a note: The map doesn't even show all the cables. There
| are some missing, there are a lot of these cables lying
| around.
| firebaze wrote:
| Nord Stream Part II
| keskival wrote:
| And also the cable between Lithuania and Sweden:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/nov/18/telecoms-cable...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-18 23:01 UTC)