[HN Gopher] Finland detains ship and its crew after critical und...
___________________________________________________________________
Finland detains ship and its crew after critical undersea cable
damaged
Author : wslh
Score : 179 points
Date : 2026-01-01 18:46 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| neuroelectron wrote:
| It sounds like the court will just throw it out again as not
| having jurisdiction over the case.
| wtcactus wrote:
| Then countries should be able to bomb these ships and go
| unpunished as well.
|
| That would pass the right message if courts keep refusing to
| make things right.
| immibis wrote:
| They can. They don't want to yet. Europe always assumes too
| much good faith on the part of other countries.
| rjsw wrote:
| The countries that the ships are registered in are not
| going to do anything if they are seized and scrapped.
| rwyinuse wrote:
| Sinking the ships and then denying knowing anything about it
| would probably be the best course of action. That's what
| Russians would do, if the roles were reversed.
|
| Unfortunately too many Western leaders still think that it's
| possible to negotiate in good faith with Russians. In reality
| they respect only force, and see European rules based order
| and "fair play" as weakness. If Baltic states didn't belong
| to NATO and Finland didn't have such a big army, Russians
| would be already doing a lot worse things than cutting
| cables.
|
| Over here in Finland, even during the "good" years between
| collapse of the Soviet Union and invasion of Crimea, Russian
| businessmen kept buying property that made absolutely no
| economic sense, but was located next to critical
| infrastructure. Better relations between West and Russia were
| largely an illusion, especially since Putin took over.
| shtzvhdx wrote:
| "Sinking the ships and then denying knowing anything about
| it would probably be the best course of action. That's what
| Russians would do, if the roles were reversed."
|
| You mean like NATO did off the coast of Spain a year ago?
| rwyinuse wrote:
| I didn't remember that case, very interesting. But yes,
| silently torpedoing a Russian ship transporting military
| technology to another hostile rogue state is exactly what
| NATO should be doing.
| shtzvhdx wrote:
| Did I miss NATO declaring war on Russia and N. Korea? Or
| are we OK with the Chinese silently torpedoing the next
| batch of military equipment to Taiwan (a rouge province
| under intl law)?
|
| Your argument, taken to its limit, is might makes right.
| Which, fine; but we're just not that strong anymore.
| Certainly not the EUpeeans.
| purerandomness wrote:
| What's the point of declaring war in a war?
|
| Russia invaded Ukraine just fine without ever declaring
| war.
| shtzvhdx wrote:
| As long as the EUpeans don't drag me, my loved ones, or
| my taxes into a war with Russia I couldn't care less if
| any this is declared or not nor do I care if they torpedo
| Russian ships.
|
| However, I also couldn't care less if the Russians
| Oreshniks Liverpool or Marseille.
| nubg wrote:
| Link?
| villaaston1 wrote:
| https://www.laverdad.es/murcia/cartagena/barco-ruso-
| hundido-...
| jopsen wrote:
| We should just silently turn up support for Ukraine, that's
| where it hurts. Everything else is a distraction.
| huhhuh wrote:
| The court threw out the previous case since there was no proof
| of sabotage. I understood the court ruled that they have no
| jurisdiction over accident cases under international law.
|
| As far as I understand, it is totally different case if they
| find any proof of intent.
| stefan_ wrote:
| I don't understand how we arrived at letting "random nation
| crew drags their anchor making the boat extremely slow and
| loud and breaks $100M+ critical infrastructure" get off scot
| free including their boat but it clearly can't continue to go
| on. If not a court then government must step in, nothing less
| is acceptable to any voting person.
| fn-mote wrote:
| With 10 undersea cables damaged in the Baltic 2023-2025, it's
| obvious a different part of the government needs to become
| involved. Acting for your national security doesn't need to
| (shouldn't) mean there is no trial.
| csmpltn wrote:
| It honestly starts to sound like they just botched the design and
| placement of these cables - placing them in shallow and exposed
| passages, with no proper defense against dragged anchors.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Unfortunately the Baltic is pretty shallow and fairly
| featureless - the gulf of Finland - between Finland, Estonia,
| and Russia averages 38 metres deep
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| If only they had had you in the design team back then when the
| cables were put in place.
|
| I'm sorry I have no snark-free way to respond to this.
| r2_pilot wrote:
| Real shades of "that cable shouldn't have been dressed like
| that, in a dark and narrow channel, clearly marked on
| navigation charts(to mitigate exactly this scenario, from good
| captains at least)" energy.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Yeah, why don't they lower the floor of the entire Baltic Sea??
| mmh0000 wrote:
| Obviously, you're joking.
|
| But how hard could it be to get a Cat 395 excavator in there?
| Dig a little trench and bury it.
|
| Sounds like a weekend project to me. Has someone told the
| telecoms this?
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| I think they could just drag a suitable hook behind a ship
| to carve out decent trench.
|
| Geez, how are we so much better at this than the actual
| engineers?
|
| Edit: to parent comment, I think people missed your joke.
| shmerl wrote:
| There needs to be a blockade for these rogue ships. That's the
| only thing they'll understand, short of being sunk.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Just seize the ships and auction them off. Damaging one cable
| isn't gonna be worth losing a whole ship, generally speaking.
| lawlessone wrote:
| Given the state some of these ships are starting to be in
| they might just be worth scrap..
| bluGill wrote:
| Often the cost to scrap a ship exceedes the value of the
| raw materials. Depends the ship as well but things like
| asbestos can drive costs up
| internet2000 wrote:
| Don't even need to click to know it's the Russians.
| amiga386 wrote:
| Every single ship in/out of St Petersburg goes via the Gulf of
| Finland. All those ships will be "Russian" (have stopped in
| Russia). It doesn't mean they're "Russian". Owner, charterer,
| flag, crew can all have very different nationalities.
|
| Which part or combination makes them "Russian", in the sense of
| "the Russian state asked asked the ship to harm Finnish
| infrastructure, and they actually did it"?
|
| You can lazily speculate about the aggressive, warmaking nation
| (that illegally annexed Crimea, is currently at war with
| Ukraine, is regularly sending submarines, ships, drones, jets
| into the territories of its neighbours) all you like... but if
| you want to be able to prosecute them, you need to be able to
| show evidence of the Russian state ordering this action, and
| that the cable damage was actually caused by that ship. Where
| is your evidence?
| javier2 wrote:
| The crew on these ships are usually all Russians, the ship is
| often registered in Cayman, Panama or somewhere else. These
| ships often sail under a third nationality, but when the
| ships are seized, only complaints are filed from Russian
| lawyers. Take from that what you will.
| kelnos wrote:
| This is the court of public opinion, not a court or law. For
| better or worse, evidentiary standards are much lower.
| nubg wrote:
| Sorry but in times of war, the regular "proof beyond
| reasonable doubt" cannot apply anymore, or you lose said war.
| amiga386 wrote:
| If you're at war then declare war. You get sweeping powers
| to deal with existential threats. Go ahead and declare your
| country is at war. Is it?
|
| If you declare war without there being a bona fide casus
| belli, you'll be whisked out of power so fast your head
| will spin. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Sout
| h_Korean_martial_law_...
|
| If you don't declare war, you don't get those emergency
| powers. You only get peacetime powers.
|
| Russia loves to go right up to the line, and then cross it
| a little bit, just to antagonise you. But unless you're
| willing to be the _instigator_ of WW3, you 'll stick to
| peacetime powers and peacetime courts with peacetime
| standards of evidence
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| >But unless you're willing to be the instigator of WW3,
| you'll stick to peacetime powers and peacetime courts
| with peacetime standards of evidence
|
| Clearly this will need to change somewhat, if the other
| side wants to engage in hybrid war tactics. Nothing new,
| Cold War was a thing.
| nubg wrote:
| But what if the other side - Russia - does wartime
| tactics without having formally declared war with NATO?
| Why do they get to keep this privilege?
| amiga386 wrote:
| Because they're an authoritarian shithole with a
| strongman leader who openly murders dissenters,
| personally controls all branches of government, controls
| the military and has people arrested just for holding up
| blank sheets of paper. He can pretend the country is not
| at war when it clearly is, and suffer no consequence,
| because nobody can replace him or even censure him
| without the country completely collapsing. When he
| eventually dies, the ensuing power vacuum will make the
| entire country a basket case. It's a dead country
| walking.
|
| Do you want to make your country such a nightmare
| country, so you can _also_ cheat like they do?
| nubg wrote:
| No, I want my country to have democratic rule of law on
| the inside (including when dealing with normal criminals
| of any kind, including murderers).
|
| But when dealing with an outside state-level aggressor, I
| want my country to be be a cunning, hypocritical,
| powerful strongman.
|
| The distinction under what mode a certain event should be
| treated should be pretty straightforward and can be
| determined using democratic means, e.g. a normal judge
| ruling "I rule this cable cutting incident to be an act
| of state-sponsored aggression against our democracy"
| (which would allow the alphabet agencies, special ops etc
| to "do their thing" with no repercussions whatsoever.)
|
| for example:
|
| 1) a murder happens between a husband and wife, two
| normies, after lengthy, normal court proceedings the
| proof who did it is not 100% conclusive, accused person
| goes free
|
| 2) a murder of an anti-russian political dissident
| happens, a russian ex speznas officer is caught in
| relation to the event -> he "disappears" one day and the
| case is closed
|
| I believe this is the only way to "win" this cold war.
| nomel wrote:
| I assumed it was China. They both enjoy this activity.
| ronsor wrote:
| Yeah, but it's a bit far away for China. They prefer
| harassing their closer neighbors.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's pretty obvious what's happening here.
|
| The response needs to be forceful: seize and auction off the
| ships. There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop
| this from happening.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's geopolitical. They don't care if you seize the ships
| because they don't care about a return on investment.
| raverbashing wrote:
| Good, another reason to seize them
| KumaBear wrote:
| Even better life in prison for all on board. (This is extreme
| but I bet you that they'd think twice)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| That's not extreme. They destroyed a piece of expensive
| critical infrastructure. Prison and seizure should be the
| bare minimum. I just mean it's not enough to prevent it in
| the future.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > There needs to be sufficient deterrent to actually stop this
| from happening
|
| One ship might be considered a reasonable pawn to sacrifice.
| I'd go further: require that any ships passing through the
| strait to be bonded at some eye-watering amount like 10x the
| price of the ship plus the repair costs of the cable. Make it
| so if the cable is cut, you make a profit.
| WA wrote:
| Only works if you find someone to pay. I listened to a
| lengthy (German) podcast about international maritime law. To
| sum it up: you can't do that much, because you won't find the
| responsible person/company/state.
| bena wrote:
| The Outlaw Sea,
| https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780865477223/theoutlawsea/
| , is a book about all of the ways international water is
| essentially lawless.
| jopsen wrote:
| Most of the water isn't internal.. getting in and out of
| the baltic sea goes past Sweden/Denmark.
|
| But we probably have promised not to blockade ships in some
| conventions. And little Denmark (or Sweden) do not benefit
| from setting a precedence that conventions can be broken.
|
| Getting payback is easy though: support Ukraine.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _(German) podcast about international maritime law_
|
| Russia isn't even pretending to follow international
| maritime law. China hasn't for a decade. And now America is
| being creative with its interpretations.
| m4rtink wrote:
| Still I don't see an issue - basically you either pay the
| armed coast gard cutter that stands in your way or you
| don't go through the straight. If you don't cause any
| trouble, the other cutter on the other end will pay you
| back. No money, no transit - unless you really like being
| boarded.
| belter wrote:
| Russia has already carried out chemical attacks on UK soil,
| used radioactive poisoning in London, sabotaged rail
| infrastructure in Poland, and launched cyberattacks against
| German air traffic control.[1]
|
| The Associated Press has documented 59 Russian hybrid
| operations across Europe. A systematic campaign of
| intimidation, sabotage, and violence:
| https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-europe-hybrid-...
|
| Russia supplied the Buk missile system that shot down MH17,
| killing 298 civilians, most of them Europeans. Putin eliminates
| political opponents, like Alexei Navalny, who died in custody
| days before a possible release.
|
| European leaders may be passive and slow, but what is making
| the situation truly dangerous, is the dictator-jealousy fueled
| encouragement and indulgence of the current U.S.
| administration, and all its sycophants, which got to the point
| of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S. soil.
|
| That behavior legitimizes aggression, emboldens Moscow, and
| directly undermines European security, and is making thinks
| really, really, sketchy right now.
|
| Germany accuses Russia of air traffic control cyber-attack: [1]
| - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgrrnylzzyo
| MaxPock wrote:
| Europe believes that Russia is doing all sorts of bad things
| and there's also the belief that Moscow plans to invade the
| EU .
|
| Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-emptive
| strikes on this big bad country that hates the western way of
| life ?
| eptcyka wrote:
| I don't believe the leadership sees Russia as an
| existential threat in Brussels. Baltics and Poland see it
| differently.
|
| A pre-emptive strike would be expensive and immediately
| retcon into making Putin be the good guy - he's long said
| NATO is the aggressor. Best to make invading EU to be too
| expensive to be worth it.
|
| I think the bigger risk currently that Europe faces is the
| low and mid level corruption where Russian agents extend
| their tendrils into government structures in EU.
| lugu wrote:
| > making Putin be the good guy
|
| Come on. Who cares what he pretend?
|
| > Best to make invading EU to be too expensive to be
| worth it.
|
| How do you propose to estimate how much it is worth doing
| it?
|
| IMO, it is best is to make the kremlin government
| collapse by all mean necessary. Including sabotage,
| assassination, propaganda, confiscation,
| corruption/trahison. And preemptive strike if needs to
| be.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| This has already happened. Just as in the US, all of the
| far-right "movements" in the EU are Russian fronts.
|
| The two biggest targets are the UK and France, because
| both have an independent nuclear deterrent. If those are
| captured by puppets, expect nuclear explosions over
| European capitals.
|
| This is not hyperbole. Russian government insiders have
| made it absolutely, unambiguously clear that Europe must
| be "crushed."
|
| As a direct quote.
|
| The real tragedy is oligarch complicity. Oligarchs and
| aristocrats in the US, UK, and EU have decided they have
| more in common with their Russian counterparts than with
| the native populations of their respective countries.
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| It's not about "hating the western way of life" or any such
| silliness. They can hate whatever they want within their
| internationally recognized borders.
|
| War is best prevented by robust deterrents. When it comes
| to belligerent fascist regimes who want to see how far you
| can be pushed, not responding to provocations and
| aggression forcefully makes larger-scale war _more_ likely
| in the future.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| No, pre-emptively starting another war is not a good idea.
| But yes, the West should work hard to make sure their enemy
| loses the war it has already started.
| belter wrote:
| > Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-
| emptive strikes on this big bad country that hates the
| western way of life ?
|
| Depending on the days, the priority changes, between Russia
| or attacking the US first, maybe with the help from Canada
| :-))
|
| You have to deal with one threat at a time, and it seems
| the fight against chlorinated chicken will take priority
| for now... :-)
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025/12/17/trump-
| demands...
| luke5441 wrote:
| We have functional democracies here. You'd have to convince
| the population this is the right course of action and then
| the politicians will do it.
|
| Good luck with that, though.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| The logical thing to do is respond proportionally: if the
| ships are deliberately damaging property, seize the ships,
| and imprison the offenders.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| > Isn't the logical action for EU to launch massive pre-
| emptive strikes
|
| To be clear, strikes wouldn't be "pre-emptive", Russia is
| already in a war, and it's entirely allowed for any nation
| to join the side of Ukraine. None of the rules of war
| prevent helping a friendly country by joining the fight.
| belter wrote:
| "Europe thinks the unthinkable: Retaliating against
| Russia" - https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-thinks-
| the-unthinkabl...
| derbOac wrote:
| > what is making the situation truly dangerous, is the
| dictator-jealousy fueled encouragement and indulgence of the
| current U.S. administration, and all its sycophants, which
| got to the point of publicly applauding a dictator on U.S.
| soil.
|
| I personally think there's a more direct link between the US
| administration and Russia, in line with the rest of your
| points. I think it's more than "dictator-jealousy fueled
| encouragement", although what that "more" is I'm not entirely
| sure, and I'm not sure the differences between the
| possibilities matters in the end.
|
| I really think it's hard not to read [about] Foundations of
| Geopolitics and the history of Viktor Yanukovych, the ties
| between the latter and Trump, and not conclude Russia's
| tendrils in the US, England, and elsewhere are far deeper
| than is generally acknowledged in the press.
|
| I lost a lot of trust in most media to cover this issue
| appropriately when people in the UK started mysteriously
| dying and zipping themselves in body bags, and the coverage
| was a collective shrug. Why they would report something like
| that and then with a straight face conclude an article with
| "police say there's no evidence of foul play" is beyond me.
| But then again how the Mueller investigation got spun as an
| exoneration is also beyond me as well.
|
| I know it's often seen as dismissive or shallow to blame the
| media for things, but I really do place a huge proportion of
| the blame for our current mess, at least in the US, on news
| outlets and media soft-pedaling what's been happening for the
| last 10 years. A lot of what people trust became propaganda,
| and a lot of the rest of it chased that audience around for
| clicks.
| belter wrote:
| Those connections go back as far as 2016...
|
| But does it matter? 77 million Americans knowingly voted a
| convicted felon and court adjudicated sexual assaulter back
| into the presidency instead of a jail cell. From those,
| about 40 million were women, fully aware that a jury found
| him liable for sexual assault, and that multiple judges
| affirmed the verdict.
|
| The majority of Americans saw criminality, sexual violence,
| and contempt for the law and decided that was acceptable
| leadership. :-))
|
| "Kushner Companies and Russian individuals exchanged
| suspicious money transfers at the height of the 2016 race,
| ex-Deutsche Bank employee says" -
| https://www.businessinsider.com/jared-kushner-
| russia-2016-mo...
| deepsun wrote:
| Russia started convoying some of those vessels, especially with
| more advanced operation bases than cable cuts [1].
|
| They won't be able to seize those without opening fire.
|
| https://ioplus.nl/en/posts/how-seven-students-unmasked-russi...
| alecthomas wrote:
| That is...disturbing.
| Sabinus wrote:
| That's fine. Let Russia escort ships that then break cables.
| It'll make it more obvious it's deliberate, and provide a
| reason for blockade and confrontation.
| vasco wrote:
| There's literal war ongoing already, no extra excuse is
| needed, only political will.
| miohtama wrote:
| And then NATO will obliterate Russia's Baltic fleet before
| the sun rises.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _pretty obvious what 's happening here_
|
| Good start. Then turn off Russia's cable that runs via Finland
| [1] and make vague threats about (a) seizing shadow-fleet
| vessels in the Baltics and (b) how vulnerable Russia's cable to
| Kaliningrad [2] would be to careless anchors.
|
| All the while: start setting up non-cable based back-up
| bandwidth for if Russia severs these cables in advance of
| invasion.
|
| [1] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-cable/bcs-
| north-...
|
| [2] https://www.submarinecablemap.com/submarine-
| cable/kingisepp-...
| lysace wrote:
| Two other cable cuts/"damages" happened around the same dates.
| Two separate Arelion-owned cables between Sweden/Estonia and
| Finland/Estonia.
|
| https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/JOow58/kabelbrott-mella...
| (Swedish)
|
| _[...] two of their submarine cables - one between Sweden and
| Estonia and one between Estonia and Finland - have been damaged.
| The first cable was damaged on December 30th and the second on
| December 31st._
|
| (Arelion is AS1299/formerly known as Telia Carrier. The name
| change happened because it's now owned by a Swedish government-
| managed infrastructure-focused pension fund.)
| Animats wrote:
| That narrow passage is becoming a war zone. Look at a map. It's
| one of Russia's few outlets to the sea. Look at the history of
| Russia vs. Finland and Russia vs. Estonia. This is one of the
| world's most hostile choke points.
| jacquesm wrote:
| That or the Suwalki gap. They're both flashpoints.
| rwyinuse wrote:
| Yep, if Russia wants to expand its conflict against Europe,
| Narva in Estonia is most likely place for it. Over 90% of its
| population is ethnic Russian, and it's located right next to
| the Russian border. It's the perfect place to send some armed
| "separatists" to see how NATO responds.
|
| My bet is that it'll happen sometime between 2029-2035, after
| UK, France and Germany have had their general elections,
| where populist parties with more pro-Russian stances are
| likely to gain power.
| Zanfa wrote:
| > Yep, if Russia wants to expand its conflict against
| Europe, Narva in Estonia is most likely place for it. Over
| 90% of its population is ethnic Russian, and it's located
| right next to the Russian border. It's the perfect place to
| send some armed "separatists" to see how NATO responds.
|
| Fortunately while close, the border runs along a fairly
| wide river with just a single bridge across, so
| logistically somewhat complicated to supply with heavy
| equipment from the Russian side. At least covertly.
|
| But definitely a scenario that needs to be considered.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Narva is a bad spot, from there it would be a long trek
| South. Doing it just North of the Polish town of Suwalki
| would allow a pincer movement that cuts off 3 EU countries
| in one go from a land bridge. That's also why it is right
| now one of the heaviest militarized zones in Europe.
|
| Narva is much less interesting in that sense.
| scoofy wrote:
| I honestly don't know much about warfare, but that seems
| like a pretty insane move to me.
|
| First, it assumes the _people_ of Belarus is willing to
| start a war with NATO and it 's _very_ grumpy neighbor to
| the south. There isn 't a world in which the Suwalki gap
| it cut off without strikes and an invasion of Belarus.
| Lukashenko might want it, but given the last "election"
| there will likely be a 5th, 6th, and 7th column waiting
| for guns to be carried over the border from Poland and
| Ukraine.
|
| Second, while Kaliningrad might be defensible (though I
| doubt that), the Baltic Sea is not. Sweden, Denmark, and
| Germany will shut down any ships entering and leaving the
| Baltic. Ukraine and Turkey cut off the Black Sea, and the
| Russian fleet is left in Murmansk (which is likely
| immediately destroyed), and Vladivostok... which as a
| single port as mostly useless, and can be mostly cut off
| in the Sea of Japan.
|
| I just really don't see a way that Russia takes any NATO
| territory without the entire thing being a psyop against
| NATO not responding via far-right isolationists, and
| we're not there yet, or as an assist to help China take
| Taiwan, which likely means world war, and we're all
| fucked.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Invading Ukraine was _also_ a pretty insane move, if
| insanity is a pre-requisite then that makes it more
| likely, not less...
| mamonster wrote:
| >First, it assumes the people of Belarus is willing to
| start a war with NATO
|
| I think there is a more than 50% chance that Belarus is
| reintegrated in some form into Russia within this
| century. It's very clear that there is no plan for
| sovereignty post-Lukashenko and all of the
| opposition(like in Russia) has been exiled(so powerless).
| This is probably the 2nd biggest miss of EU foreign
| policy in the 21st century after Ukraine, they basically
| put Lukashenko in the same basket as Putin even though up
| until 2020 he did everything he could to maintain his
| sovereignty and got hit with horrible sanctions. But IMO
| it's too late now.
|
| >Second, while Kaliningrad might be defensible (though I
| doubt that)
|
| Russian military doctrine is kind of nebulous, but the
| one thing it is extremely clear on is that Kaliningrad
| will be defended using nuclear weapons. Exactly because
| it's basically not defensible using conventional means.
| scoofy wrote:
| The point is you don't have to attack Kaliningrad. A
| siege trivially collapses the place. The place is wildly
| vulnerable on all sides despite the short distance to
| Belarus. This isn't a "the Kerch Bridge is outside of
| missle range" situation. Literally every way in and out
| of the enclave can be exploded on a daily basis, even
| without striking the enclave itself.
|
| So if the idea is to invade the Baltics, but "not allow
| an invasion of Kaliningrad, without nuclear
| retaliation"... well then we've going to have a nuclear
| war and everyone loses, simply because you can't retake
| the Baltics without Kaliningrad, and NATO isn't going to
| allow the Baltics to be lost.
| voidfunc wrote:
| > I just really don't see a way that Russia takes any
| NATO territory without the entire thing being a psyop
| against NATO not responding via far-right isolationists,
| and we're not there yet, or as an assist to help China
| take Taiwan, which likely means world war, and we're all
| fucked.
|
| I mean that's really the setup.
|
| 1. Get America to move towards a more isolationist setup
| / unwilling to help Europe or Taiwan. This is already in
| motion politically and via social media operations.
|
| 2. Get America stuck in a conflict with Iran. This is
| ramping up.
|
| 3. China takes Taiwan. Probably in the next 2-5 years.
|
| 4. Russia takes the Baltics and starts to carve further
| into Europe.
|
| My further total crackpot theory on all of this is that
| most of this has been agreed upon by all the major powers
| involved.
|
| 1. Russia gets to claim over Europe in the future.
|
| 2. China gets Taiwan and control of Africa + APAC.
|
| 3. US gets control of North America and South America.
| This culminates in the annexation of Greenland once
| Russia takes Europe. This is the agreed upon transaction
| for America to back out of Russo-European affairs and
| China-Taiwan affairs. Canada and Mexico eventually are
| also merged into the US unwillingly but without any major
| allies left there isn't much to prevent it.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Svalbard is another possible obvious target. It has a
| Russian population, is quite some distance from the
| mainland, and is essentially undefended.
|
| It would be easy to set up a Russian military presence,
| and it would be hard to dislodge it from a distance
| without considerable effort and expense.
| HelloUsername wrote:
| Related, posted a day ago
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46445484
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46443925
| greesil wrote:
| Mine the Gulf of Finland, problem solved. This may create other
| problems but hey Finland is part of NATO now.
| deliciousturkey wrote:
| The fact that this area where the incident happened, Gulf of
| Finland, is not fully part Finnish/Estonian territorial waters,
| is only because of a bilateral Finnish-Estonian agreement. This
| was done in the 1990's purely for benevolence towards Russia.
|
| Russia clearly hasn't acted in such way that they should enjoy
| these kinds of acts of benevolence. Finland and Estonia should
| seriously consider retreating from this agreement.
| Fairburn wrote:
| Lock em up, sell thier property. Rinse and repeat.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Lock em up, sell thier property. Rinse and repeat._
|
| Works for small and medium-sized private companies. Doesn't
| work for major nations like Russia.
|
| Doing as you suggest is like writing parking tickets for
| delivery trucks. They don't care. It's just a cost of doing
| business.
| iambateman wrote:
| Assuming it is state-sponsored sabotage...why? Whats the outcome
| they want? Is it just turning up the heat in the region?
| jopsen wrote:
| Scaring people, distraction, etc.
|
| In the grand scheme, repairing the cables and supporting
| Ukraine will cost less and hurt Russia more than escalating
| tentions in the Baltic sea.
| everfrustrated wrote:
| They want to test how quickly the cables get repaired and what
| vessels do the repairs etc.
| fennecbutt wrote:
| Just like Trump's tariff bs, I'm starting to think that for
| Putin's M.O. that we should be fighting fire with fire.
|
| Why not send a couple ships to drag anchors across Russia's
| cables? "Oh we are but innocent fishermen" is still valid going
| the other way.
|
| Then when Russia inevitably seizes and imprisons the crew, the
| international community can do the same for every Russian
| controlled ship with the bare minimum of suspicion.
|
| Would be a pretty sucky mission though, so many risks of capture.
| But the Russian government does it because they don't care about
| their people and also the rest of the world is too toothless to
| do anything about it (until this occurrence at least, go Finland
| - but then they know Russia's tactics very well).
|
| Russia has been doing a "stop hitting yourself, stop hitting
| yourself" to the world for too long, abusing the "nice" way we
| desperately try to see things, pretending even when it's obvious.
| Like they'll do something egregious and then when the West calls
| them out, suddenly their political mouthpieces are all "we can't
| believe that the West is making this shocking and provocative
| accusation which is of course completely false, EU are bullies!"
| and then the world responds by taking a step back, pretty much
| every single time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-01 23:01 UTC)