Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

forsvaret.dk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#361

Post by ovalite »

lizardactivist wrote: post #348
yread wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason for Russia to sabotage it is as a show of force. "If we can hit our pipeline we can hit your pipeline, too". In unrelated news a brand new pipeline going from Norway to Poland through the Baltic sea opened just yesterday https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan... Talking about poor maintenance in a thread about registered underwater explosions sounds like FUD

Sort of like invading your own country, or shooting yourself with a gun would be an effective show of force?

Similar to shooting down your own satellites.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#362

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK »

jcranmer wrote: post #185
tpmx wrote: post #54

The Swedish national seismic network picked up two explosions within kilometers of the reported gas leak locations yesterday. The time of the first explosion: Yesterday, Monday morning at 02:03 am, second one Monday evening at 7:04pm (local time, CEST). The reports of the gas leaks came at 1:52pm and 8:41pm, respectively - by means of ships reporting bubbling at the surface level. One of the two events registered at…

Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood: * Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now. * NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored). *…

* Ukrainian or Baltic non-government group. On one hand, it achieves the desired outcome - reduce Russia's income, on the other hand, Germans can't blame Ukrainian government for that.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#363

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

throwaway4good wrote: post #320
origin_path wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that NS2 has also been destroyed, and that's even more recent than NS1. It was definitely sabotage, it can't be anything else given the timing, and it has to be state sponsored given that the pipelines are under the ocean. Berlin apparently thinks it would require submarines or special forces. US / Ukraine are unfortunately the only states for which this makes sense (perhaps US with back-room permission from som…

(Assuming it would not be beneath the US or proxies to do such a thing.) It would not make sense right now. Germany was nowhere reopening Nordstream 2 and if it came to that the US would have other effective means of blocking its use before reaching to outright sabotage.

Why not? Ever heard of Baltops 2022? Its last remains just passed by there a few days ago. Some divers, some mines, some timer or remote detonator, done.

https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/schleswig-holstein/fehma...

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#364

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

Tomte wrote: post #289
jcranmer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood: * Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now. * NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored). *…

> Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. That would be a tragic miscalculation. If it comes out that Ukraine is responsible, German public sentiment will turn hard . No more military shipments, maybe even rapproachement with Russia. If it's a state actor, I'd think about Poland first.

We have indeed been hating NS since the first pipeline was planned and opened. The reason for it's very existence has always been to squeeze us out of the picture.

However, it would be an enormous risk for us to alienate NATO in any way. NATO is our only protection and we know it. Without NATO we are extremely easy to conquer - Stalin made sure of that when he drew our current borders.

My money would be on a more extreme internal fraction in Putin's Russia. The objective: close the door on any voices in Russia asking to go back to the way things were.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#365

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

electrondood wrote: post #292
henearkr wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "ecoterrorist" option is just ridiculous, the methane leak is disaster for the climate.

Who benefits from polar ice caps melting? Russia. They get access to a ton of previously unavailable, strategically important land.

Land or swamp?

edit: That wasn't meant to be derogatory. AFAIK large parts of that land will be swamp and mud if the permafrost thaws up. Even now there are large parts with no streets or railways, reachable only by treks over frozen rivers during winter, by sea if coastal, or air. And the infrastructures built on permafrost will suffer too, if it thaws up.

The same way as large parts of Alaska and Canada are.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#366

Post by gambiting »

jcranmer wrote: post #185
tpmx wrote: post #54

The Swedish national seismic network picked up two explosions within kilometers of the reported gas leak locations yesterday. The time of the first explosion: Yesterday, Monday morning at 02:03 am, second one Monday evening at 7:04pm (local time, CEST). The reports of the gas leaks came at 1:52pm and 8:41pm, respectively - by means of ships reporting bubbling at the surface level. One of the two events registered at…

Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood: * Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now. * NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored). *…

There's yet another option that you haven't noted - Poland is only safe in its gas reserves because of the Norway->Poland gas pipeline. Destroying the Nordstream pipeline seems to send a clear message "stay out of this, or the Norway to Poland pipeline ends in the same way"(and then Poland is completely screwed and has no gas this winter).

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#367

Post by tablespoon »

ovalite wrote: post #361
lizardactivist wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of like invading your own country, or shooting yourself with a gun would be an effective show of force?

Similar to shooting down your own satellites.

>> Sort of like invading your own country, or shooting yourself with a gun would be an effective show of force?

> Similar to shooting down your own satellites.

No.

When they do that as a show of force, they shoot down some worthless EOL satellite they don't plan to use ever again. IIRC, the US actually shot down one that was damaged and out of control: a show of force with a "safety" pretext.

You don't shoot down valuable, active infrastructure as a show of force. Russia blowing up Nord Stream would be like the US shooting down brand new GPS or spy satellites.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#368

Post by bamboozled »

fuoqi wrote: post #123
brightball wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the US do that?

Because it cuts a huge temptation for Germans to find some compromise with Russia and allows them to sell LNG for huge profits?

It sounds pretty amateur, not how the US would operate

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#369

Post by cameldrv »

formerly_proven wrote: post #215
pphysch wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Russians blew up their own brand-new pipeline, which they spend billions creating (jointly with the Germans) and is one of the few major "hopes" to salvage that relationship, especially as winter dawns. That's frankly absurd. Russia almost certainly sabotaged a LNG terminal in Texas a few months ago (industrial cyberattack). This act was almost certainly done by Washington or their proxies. It drives the wedge fu…

> That's frankly absurd. The notion that NS2 would enter operation is absurd. NS2 has been dead in the water for months, and the prospect of entering service have been dubious for some time before the Russians invaded Ukraine.

It's not absurd if NS1 were damaged. Even if Germany didn't want the extra capacity that NS2 brings, it's an obvious backup if NS1 were to fail. Anyone wanting to cut off the option of Russia supplying gas to Germany this winter would have to hit both.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#370

Post by randmeerkat »

Tomte wrote: post #289
jcranmer wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the explosions are relevant, some possible causes, ordered somewhat (but not entirely) by my personal estimation of likelihood: * Ecoterrorists -- I discount this mostly on the basis that they would have claimed responsibility by now. * NATO sabotage -- this reduces strategic options for several EU countries (albeit a strategic option that isn't really being exercised and is almost universally disfavored). *…

> Ukrainian sabotage -- pretty much the only actor for whom sabotage makes rational sense. That would be a tragic miscalculation. If it comes out that Ukraine is responsible, German public sentiment will turn hard . No more military shipments, maybe even rapproachement with Russia. If it's a state actor, I'd think about Poland first.

> That would be a tragic miscalculation. If it comes out that Ukraine is responsible, German public sentiment will turn hard.

> No more military shipments…

What shipments[1]?

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/16/ukraine-slams-germany-for-fa...

Post reply on HN