Thread

Starlink ground station in Poland hit by fire in suspected arson attack

183 points · 182 comments · giuliomagnifico

Shank · 1790247119 · focus · HN ↗
It feels like it’s very, very risky territory for these activities to be “occurring” in a NATO country. I’m sure everyone else is thinking the same thing, but at what point does Article 5 get invoked?
1. ElProlactin · 1790247505 · focus · HN ↗
  > ...but at what point does Article 5 get invoked
  Probably not as likely as you think.
  First, these things intentionally fall short of clear "armed attacks" and are designed around plausible deniability.
  Second, Europe/NATO are not looking for a fight. Russia is in a bad spot right now, but NATO is not in a great spot for a kinetic conflict with Russia either.
  Lastly, I don't think NATO countries are eager to test America's willingness to defend Europe under the Trump administration because they already know the likely answer when they call for help.
  1. Loughla · 1790248050 · focus · HN ↗
    The last one is the strongest one. Our prior allies know they just can't count on us at all, when it comes to Russia, especially.
    It is a sad state of affairs.
    cucumber3732842 · 1790249261 · focus · HN ↗
    On the flip side, when your allies know they can count on you you stuff like them picking stupid fights because they know you'll back them up. Israel dragging us further into Iran during the first ~third of the conflict when the US was trying to find a clean place to stop the escalation is a pretty good example of that.
    mschuster91 · 1790249860 · focus · HN ↗
    "the US" is stretching it hard when it comes to the Iran war. In the US government under Trump, there are a lot of different interests...
    - you got Kushner and his ilk who basically wants to flatten Gaza to turn it into a real estate hotspot to make untold amounts of money
    - you got the Evangelical nutcases who legitimately believe that this mess is a holy war and will bring back Jesus [1]
    - you got your usual old-school falcons, MIC lobbyists etc. that stand to make a lot of money and/or want this war to happen for ideological reasons
    - you got a ton of isolationists who want "an end to the US wars that cost taypayer money"
    - you gotTrump himself who openly admires strongmen and (wannabe) dictators, and I think it's fair to classify Netanyahu as both.
    And that is a loooot of different to incompatible interests to balance against each other.
    [1] <a href="https://theconversation.com/evangelical-holy-war-why-some-christians-think-trump-will-end-the-world-277617" rel="nofollow">https://theconversation.com/evangelical-holy-war-why-some-ch...
    cucumber3732842 · 1790250188 · focus · HN ↗
    Absolutely, but there were several instances where the US, regardless of how disparate the interests in it are, was more or less at the negotiating table and then Israel started blowing stuff up.
    cestith · 1790263827 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump doesn't want negotiations and deals with Iran. He wants to conquer it and make it a puppet state.
    If he actually wanted a deal in place to limit nuclear ambitions and proliferation, he wouldn't have thrown it away in the first place.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.