661–670 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, Ukraine's famous Baltic sea combat divers.
This entire war has been an exercise in Ukraine using other people's resources to attack Russia. If they wanted to I'm sure the US and Ukraine could figure out how to get this done.
That's an interesting way to describe a country defending itself on its own soil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Due to the special inside coating to reduce friction, seawater ingress would mean the abandonment of the pipeline. It’s just not possible to fix the line without just replacing the entire thing. I theorize it’s possible to run at severely reduced flow rates if they were able to get the water out, but that seems unlikely since the receiving facilities are not designed to handle the tremendous amount of water that woul…
You would think they would have valves or whatever along the pipeline. In case they need to shut off section.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entire war has been an exercise in Ukraine using other people's resources to attack Russia. If they wanted to I'm sure the US and Ukraine could figure out how to get this done.
> attack Russia That's an interesting way to describe a country defending itself on its own soil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except now they’ve told everyone they’re coming, which would be stupid. If they were considering blowing up pipelines they wouldn’t tell anyone and ruin the element of surprise.
The threat is more valuable than the the actual action. Russia's nuclear threats can only accomplish so much. They have so far kept NATO from getting directly involved but clearly have not worked to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine or moderated sanctions. And with the EU getting closer to removing its dependence on Russian gas, the energy angle is quickly vanishing. This could be Russias way of subtly signaling that…
Maybe you think the symbolism is important, but on the other hand, people might also just think it looks childish...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Edit: these things are censored in google, Wikipedia etc by US state actors. We largely have to go on the words of people like Max Blumenthal and others who have been largely censored and scrubbed from easy access by these same state apparatuses or wait until foia requests reveal what they always reveal about our benevolent state. Max Blumenthal is a Russian propagandist who is a regular guest on Russian state back…
I’m sure he takes the appearances he can get after having all his sources of funding cut. I hope you’re being paid well to call people propagandists who have devoted their lives and sacrificed everything to speak truth to power. I don’t take it at face value and it does seem he has an understandable bias at this point. The gray zone is super strange to read, but these are investigative journalists on the ground. Plea…
I’m merely speaking truth to power against a person who seems to love to parrot kremlin talking points.
If you don’t want to admit the person who hires ex RT and Sputnik reporters for his website might have something to do with propaganda then that’s okay but I suggest you look up the kind of information that RT and Sputnik put out.
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.
Well, a few things first:
1- NS1 along NS2 are (were) shutdown and clearly these were not going to re-open, not before the end of the war - not politically acceptable for Putin, even less for Germany
2- The war is going to last for many more months (best case scenario) or a year or two or ... No matter how long it will really last, Europe, after having survived Winter 2022 will not be reliant to Russian gas anymore. It's clear to everyone that NS1 / NS2 will likely never re-open again.
3- Based on #2, you can assume that NS2 like NS1 are just dead ...
So again, who profits from the crime?
1- USA: why would they take the risk to destroy the pipeline knowing Germans won't buy Russian gas in the foreseeable future? Their utmost priority is that Ukraine defeats Russia to send a strong message to China. They can't care less about NS2 at the moment, but they care most about unity among western countries, that's how Russia will lose and that's how they will win. Of course, Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a good thing for them, but it's not really a strategic objective, at most tactical ...
2- Russia: they are losing the war and now throwing conscripts with not a day of training on the front. That's pretty desperate move to say the least. Whenever they escalate, they see that as a chance to break unity among the west. Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it. If Russia loses the war, Putin is just dead (at least politically). He can't care less about Russia economy at the moment.
3- Eastern Europe: their hate for Russia is very strong and they obviously welcome such a move. But like for the US, they want very hard Ukraine to win, and blowing up such a pipeline is not clear the immediate benefit. Besides, it's still a risky operation and it's not clear whether they just have the capacity to carry out such an operation without taking the risk of being detected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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. That boat has sailed some time ago - you don't need to destroy something that's guaranteed it won't be used for decades probably, if ever again. No country in the West will do any trade with Russia under Putin. There's simply no turning back when you throw diplomacy and…
It's hugely positive for Ukraine. They'd have done it on day-one if it wouldn't have looked bad. Less income for Russia, less for Russia to divide its allies with. This is a strong negative for Russia. They had control of the pipeline and thus could dangle the offer of gas, now they cannot. Their leverage is gone.
After that win, it was set in stone that Germany was done with Russian gas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Winning the war in Ukraine, however, is a primary objective. Wasn't his whole plan to energy-starve Europe over the winter until they came crawling back? The only way Putin has a remote chance of winning the war at this point is if western support stops, destroying the one mechanism that might actually do that seems counterproductive.
I'm not saying I believe this is the cause, mind you. I'm firmly undecided on that one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 build it after all. NS2 never entering service was settled for good over 200 days ago. NS1 has been shut down by Russia, but it was at best dubious before this whether it would ever be used operationally again.
It wasn't "settled for good", that's silly, it was still there pressurized and ready to go. Germany recently saw protests by people who wanted to open it, and some politicians saying it needed to be opened, and it is safe to assume that if things got really bad in Germany this winter they would have opened it. Clearly, whoever has attacked these pipelines knew perfectly well that the story about Russia being unwillin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Just because doing something has a negative outcome it doesn't mean not doing it can't have a worse outcome. i.e. if a car jacker threatens to shoot you if you don't hand over your car that doesn't mean handing over your car was a great outcome. In this hypothetical Putin had the choice between having a higher chance of accidentally falling down the stairs/out a window, or weakening his country economically. Putin do…