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

691–700 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#691

Post by Animatronio »

WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #666
thiagoharry wrote: post #578

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.

Like on any crime scene, who profits from the crime? 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 Win…

1. NS1 and/or NS2 were ready to reopen according to Putin if Europe were to lift sanctions.

2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli.

3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear)

So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal against NS2, wouldn't be affected by such destruction of foreign infrastructure, stands to gain when adversaries lose. Germany becoming dependent on US gas is a massive bonus. Imagine being able to control EU's largest economy on a whim.

2. Russia: assuming they would want to destroy the pipes, and not the much easier land infrastructure, why not let the world know about it ASAP?

3. Eastern Europe: only Poland has the means and maybe motivation to do so.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#692

Post by rad_gruchalski »

advisedwang wrote: post #641
ancorevard wrote: post #244

The most plain explanation is that this was simply a warning message from Russia. These two pipelines have no longer any value to them, nor to EU. However, what does have value are the numerous pipelines from Norway and other countries to EU. And this is where the real treat is. Russia has now shown it is willing to blow up infrastructure outside Ukraine. Russia is known to have carefully mapped out the gas pipelines…

Russia could send a warning message by shutting off the gas. What is the need to blow it up and reduce future choices?

Obvious answer would be that they cannot switch off Norwegian gas but can definitely blow up a Norwegian pipeline (or Polish, or British).

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#693

Post by jeffdn »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #658
monkeydreams wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that Ukraine has the capability to do this. The number of countries capable of this act is quite small.

I wonder what would be the bare minimum required to stage an operation like this, if one were willing to take big risks. Like, combat divers operating from an inconspicuous sailing yacht or the like? Sail into position, go down (80 meters should be doable with Trimix), place explosives with timed fuses (set to a few weeks?), go back up, throw the equipment overboard later, sail into Kiel with no one the wiser? Not th…

I'm certain that there will be investigations from NATO navies soon, and we will have some explanation. Whether or not that's actually what happened or not will depend on who did it and who is most beneficial to pin it on, but I'm sure there will be pictures that are illustrative.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#694

Post by dernett »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #554
rixrax wrote: post #459

If you're reading the news, and wondering why russia might blow up the gas pipeline they own, Telegraph has a pretty decent discussion on the matter[0]. [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/09/27/putins-nor...

Paywalled...

No post body was provided.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#695

Post by rad_gruchalski »

bamboozled wrote: post #664
qqqwerty wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that? Maybe you think the symbolism is important, but on the other hand, people might also just think it looks childish...

> So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that?

The intelligence knows for sure. But imagine the effect such action has if it happened that the pictures of gas bubbling up the Baltic sea were shown on TV in every news program for a week.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#696

Post by libertine »

mort96 wrote: post #668
scottLobster wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Staying alive, and staying in charge, are probably even more primary than winning the war. I'm not saying I believe this is the cause, mind you. I'm firmly undecided on that one.

This is how I see these events. It's all the product of someone that wants to survive and keep the perks until his death - at all costs.

If there was a greater interest at play Russia would be a very different place, and Ukraine would willingly join their sphere of influence.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#697

Post by SanjayMehta »

dmix wrote: post #403
SanjayMehta wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You left out the obvious culprit. Jump to 1:20. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

The US is close friends with many of the consumers of those gas lines. That makes as little sense as all the other options but even less so.

The sanctions are designed to wreck Germany and it's working.

Industries will move to the US, where energy is available and labour laws aren't as stringent.

Biden even had a bit of a Freudian slip when he said "Germany" in that clip and then changed it to "Russia."

Now that the gas lines are done for, Germany can't even negotiate with Russia (or the EU) to get the gas back.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#698

Post by qqqwerty »

bamboozled wrote: post #664
qqqwerty wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that? Maybe you think the symbolism is important, but on the other hand, people might also just think it looks childish...

The entire invasion of Ukraine looks childish from where I sit. That hasn't stopped them.

> Maybe you think the symbolism is important

It is important in that verbal threats do not carry much weight when so many other threats have already been wagered. For example Putin has already threatened to attack Finland if the join NATO. Sometimes you need a little more than words to get your message across.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#699

Post by Paradigma11 »

FollowingTheDao wrote: post #71
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?

Why don't you include the US and EU as the possible saboteurs? I mean we have the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident as precedence.

How is that analogy supposed to work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Second...

Yes, the US administration knowingly misrepresented the facts but in the end the only thing that happened was some US ships firing at shadows in the fog they believed to be enemies. Nothing that had not happened before in far more dramatic fashion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogger_Bank_incident

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#700

Post by Animatronio »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #642
thiagoharry wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA is the country that threatened an attack against the gas pipeline. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the -- the border of Ukraine again, then there will be -- there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2," Biden said during the press conference with Scholz, who did not go as far as Biden, but insisted the U.S. and Germany remain "absolutely united." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-meet-…

No, they didn’t threaten an attack. This is such a low-effort take on this whole situation. Think a bit.

Doesn't matter if it's a follow up to Biden's threat or not. It was probably a joint US-Polish operation. The Poles wanted to stick it to Putin and ze Germans for historical and more recent inter-EU spats. The US has obvious reasons, no need to elaborate here. In case things go south the Poles will be exposed as rogue agents of NATO and take full blame. If everything goes well, then I guess we'll be reading about it in about a decade from now. Maybe there will be a wikipedia page as well.
Post reply on HN