Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea • Hacker News Board

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#611

Post by kazen44 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

percevalve wrote: post #158

netsharc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the Russian military has some factions, and a faction is thinking surrender. Destroying the pipelines would advantage the faction against surrender, because then the surrenderists would be weaker, since they have less to offer to the EU. Which faction Putin would belong to is a different area of speculation. Or it's really Putin's way of saying "I'm not bluffing, in fact, here's how serious I am, see these pipe…

Reading that the Norway-Poland pipeline just happened to open today... Sounds like a loud a clear message to me, along the lines of "Gas pipeline seems to be very fragile around here, let's just hope nothing happens to yours". If you add factions into the mix, I would say that this might be what makes the most sense. https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan...

destroying something as vital as the poland-norway pipeline or other norwegian gas infrastructure could be seen as a trigger for article 5.

Mind you, this is something russian claims it wants (the war against the west and all that), but actually triggering it or something like it which allows to poor even more weapons into ukraine will result in an even weaker russia.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#612

Post by scottLobster » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:03 PM UTC

migro23 wrote: post #531

jskrablin wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whoever did it - any further debate along "let's make friends again with Putin and go back to the cheap Russian gas as it once was" lines is now settled. That alone will have interesting consequences across EU.

That debate was long dead at least while Putin remained in power

Unless his strategy of energy starvation actually worked over the winter

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#613

Post by keewee7 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:04 PM UTC

xtian wrote: post #545

eloff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that doesn't look like an accident. I have difficulty imagining accidental ignition in an underwater gas pipeline. Where would the oxygen come from? Plus it's more than one explosion on the same day - can't be a coincidence. The next question is, who did it? It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. They invested huge sums of money to b…

> The next question is, who did it? A Polish member of the European Parliament has thanked the US: https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915

He is trolling pro-Russian people in Poland and Germany who blamed the US from the very beginning without any evidence.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#614

Post by cdash » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:05 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #514

eloff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that doesn't look like an accident. I have difficulty imagining accidental ignition in an underwater gas pipeline. Where would the oxygen come from? Plus it's more than one explosion on the same day - can't be a coincidence. The next question is, who did it? It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. They invested huge sums of money to b…

> they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational Not recently. Recently, they pulled out a string of excuses to send less and less gas over (turbine bing repaired, sanctions, etc.) to show Europe their leverage. They don't feel any lack of money currently, and they know with current hydrocarbon prices, they have options to sell, even if at discount, and no money shortages currently. So they're bet…

They stopped sending gas over on Nord Stream 1 with the excuse of maintenance and repairs specifically as leverage for Germany to sign off on opening their brand new pipeline Nord Stream 2 for business.

Now, both pipelines have been blown up. It doesn't make any sense for it to have been Russia.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#615

Post by mort96 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:05 PM UTC

thiagoharry wrote: post #578

yznovyak wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common theme I've heard here (Kyiv, Ukraine) is that this sabotage is in Putin's direct interest. There are rumours of political infighting among Russia's leaders and that there are several factions trying to seize power, however since there is no clear winner, those guys need powerful allies, EU being a very important one. The idea is that Europe really wants to buy Russian gas, but not from Putin, so if Russia some…

Why is Putin direct interest destroy a source of income and leverage to the country!?!? Now Germany can buy gas from 2 sources: Ukraine and USA. This explanation makes no sense to me.

It should be extremely clear that the health of Russia as a country isn't Putin's primary goal. If (and it's a big "if") destroying a source of income or leverage to the country can make Putin safer against assassination and coup attempts, I don't see why he wouldn't do it.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#616

Post by scottLobster » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:05 PM UTC

phpthrowaway99 wrote: post #495

aredox wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is in Russia's interest: this is their last warning before the North Sea pipelines blow up too.

Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on. Now if the pipelines are destroyed, no matter how cold and angry citizens in the EU get, EU leadership has no reason to give in to Russian since that now won't get the gas turned back on. If anything, this points to Ukraine or the US doing it.

Ukraine has active natural gas pipelines running through its territory right now. Why not blow those up? Would be easy enough to claim a stray Russian artillery strike missed and hit a pipeline.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#617

Post by mort96 » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:08 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #546

yznovyak wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Common theme I've heard here (Kyiv, Ukraine) is that this sabotage is in Putin's direct interest. There are rumours of political infighting among Russia's leaders and that there are several factions trying to seize power, however since there is no clear winner, those guys need powerful allies, EU being a very important one. The idea is that Europe really wants to buy Russian gas, but not from Putin, so if Russia some…

Quoted post unavailable.

They said Putin's interest, not Russia's interest. Don't make the mistake of assuming Putin will act in accordance with Russia's interests.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#618

Post by elihu » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:09 PM UTC

cm2187 wrote: post #4

I read talks of sabotage but I struggle to understand the point, surely russia wouldn’t sabotage their own pipelines (they can just shut them) and I understand they are not in use right now. In fact doesn’t that mean that the pipeline will be flooded? Is that recoverable?

There's a theory I've seen that Russia could have sabotaged Nord Stream to evade breach-of-contract penalties for shutting off gas. I don't know how credible that theory is though, and there are plenty of alternative parties and potential motives. Practically anyone with a boat and a limpet mine could have done this. (Maybe we'll get more clarity as the damage is inspected.)

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#619

Post by trasz » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

rendang wrote: post #172

tut-urut-utut wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why forget the obvious, Ukraine? They already showed they are capable of doing terrorist actions on Russian territory while keeping silent about it. Baltic pipeline would be a children play for them, since an army can't protect it. Their enemy will not be able to sell gas to Europe without going through what is left of Ukraine. Since Poland stopped Jamal, they can basically dictate transit price and let Russia financ…

Odd that this is downvoted. I do wonder what possible methods could have been use to undertake this. Are there underwater drones that are capable? Could a small private boat have just gotten into position about the pipeline and dropped the explosive?

It’s downvoted because it repeats Rashist propaganda - there were no terrorist attacks by Ukraine.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#620

Post by woodruffw » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:10 PM UTC

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #608

woodruffw wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a serious stretch to read this as threatening an attack on the pipeline itself. Not only is it from over 6 months ago, but it doesn't make any sense: NS2 is controlled by the Germans themselves, and there's no strategic value in blowing it up rather than just turning it off (or on). The more sensible interpretation is that Biden was threatening to fully support Germany's plans to become energy independent. And t…

> The more sensible interpretation is that Biden was threatening to fully support Germany's plans to become energy independent. I don't think that Biden was threatening to blow up the pipeline, but what you've given is a somewhat sugar-coated version of the American approach towards Germany and Nord Stream 2. Long before the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the US began sanctioning German companies involved in NS2. T…

> At the time, I read Biden's statement as a promise that the US would sharpen sanctions on German companies involved in the project if the Germans did not willingly exit the project themselves.

While I don't doubt the factuality of this, I didn't get that from this specific briefing (given that it was with Scholz, who expressed unity with the US's position).

In other words: unless Scholz is saying one thing and doing another, there would be no specific need to threaten German companies with additional US sanctions; Germany's government would (and eventually did) take action on its own.

(I don't mean to sugar-coat the US's foreign policy, which can be succinctly and accurately described as "uniformly nasty until we get what we want.")