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

731–740 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#731

Post by ALittleLight »

mort96 wrote: post #617
mytailorisrich wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the one hand, the US explicitly, publicly, and repeatedly threatened to unilaterally stop the pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine. The US has a clear benefit in the sense that they remove the option for European allies to buy Russian oil. The US also has the ability to do it in the form of ships in the area.

On the other hand, perhaps it's in Putin's interest to destroy his own pipelines for some reason.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#732

Post by cronix »

eloff wrote: post #113
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…

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…

Biden did say that if Russia invades Ukraine, "there will be no longer a Nordstream 2" seven months ago. When a reporter asked "how he would do that, since it's under German control," he stated "we will, I promise you, we will be able to do it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSPfXLPUJHM

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#733

Post by adventured »

bulbosaur123 wrote: post #486
dmix wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

USA wants to exports its LNG to Europe. It makes a lot of economical sense.

For what? $30 billion in extra LNG exports to Europe per year?

The US is approaching having a $30 trillion economy.

Apple does $387b in sales. Who cares about $30 billion at the scale the US operates at?

Should the US blow up SAP for the benefit of Microsoft or Oracle? They're a lot more important economically than LNG exports.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#734

Post by melonrusk »

yznovyak wrote: post #449
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…

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…

> if Russia somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade.

If the war stops, deliveries will resume through the overland pipelines, so Nordstream is largely irrelevant so far as Putin's rivals are concerned.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#735

Post by droptablemain »

yznovyak wrote: post #449
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…

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…

This is utterly absurd.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#736

Post by lovemenot »

tpmx wrote: post #512
Symmetry wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the technical resources required to pull something like this off don't seem to be all that high. You need a ton or so of explosives which is the hard part, a delayed fuse, a water proof container, a camera and light that work underwater, and some winches to deploy the camera and then the bomb. It wouldn't surprise me if almost every nation in Europe could pull this off if they put their minds to i…

What kind of sub-national groups in relevant countries do you have in mind? Otherwise: Agreed.

GreenWar: a hypothetical sibling of GreenPeace. Of course I don't actually believe this.

However, considering the war and today's sabotage purely from a global warming perspective, it could be net positive in the long run. Accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#737

Post by XorNot »

jmyeet wrote: post #722
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…

Online I've seen some takes that America is responsible for this. I get why. America's foreign policy has done and continues to do some appalling things (eg any number of coups). The idea is that the US doesn't want Europe to be reliant on Russian gas or that Russia may be able to use the prospect of that gas (coming into winter) to sway Europe with respect to Ukraine. I don't buy it. The blowback potential would be…

The question no one asks is "how long does it take to repair a break in the pipeline?"

The whole pipeline is still there, this is damaged sections. This would be a known risk of an undersea pipeline: stuff undersea gets damaged by ships all the time [1].

I would wager, were we in normal circumstances, we'd be talking 6 months. There'd be big money at stake, vital infrastructure, and that's about as long as you've got till winter in Europe normally. We would have spare pipe sections, we've still got all the plant and equipment for putting them in place. Basically, this is not unplanned for event.

But does Russia, Putin specifically, think the pipeline will be of any benefit to them over the next 6 months? If Russia withdraws from Ukraine, sure. But why would that happen? Because Putin has been deposed (and is probably dead) - and the main way to accrue the sort of allies you'd need to do it would be to promise them a bigger cut of the new revenue to the state provided they played ball.

Taking the pipelines out of circulation in the short term cuts off internal negotiating power for would be usurpers for Putin specifically. Which for current day Russia, is the only consideration that matters.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamchatka_(ship)

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#738

Post by margalabargala »

kstenerud wrote: post #90

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Poland. The Polish prime minister immediately called "sabotage" and fingered Russia, while everyone else is still saying "it could be sabotage but we need to investigate first". Russia wants the taps capable of being turned ON at their discretion, not permanently broken. This hurts their bargaining position in a big way because they've just lost their biggest source of lev…

> The Polish prime minister immediately called "sabotage" and fingered Russia, while everyone else is still saying "it could be sabotage but we need to investigate first".

Pipes of both Nordstream 1 and 2 blew up simultaneously. It seems pretty immediately obvious that it was done intentionally by someone.

I'm sure the perpetrator will eventually become known; I don't pretend to know who it is now. But that it was sabotage seems clear, so I wouldn't hold it against someone to claim such.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#739

Post by throwawaydad12 »

woodruffw wrote: post #597
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-…

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 strategic value to the US is that it completely removes the possibility that Germany will negotiate with Russia to turn the pipelines back on.

Or, alternatively, it's a strategic benefit to Russia to plant the idea of US treachery in the minds of the Germans.

I have no opinion and doubt we'll ever know what actually happened. Definitely sabotage, though.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#740

Post by XorNot »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #679
smsm42 wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? If it is stopped by the Russian order, Russians violated the contract. If it is stopped because unknown terrorists blew up the pipeline, it's force majeure, Gazprom is in the clear. Also, they have one more pipeline left. Which they are also threatening to - guess what? - shut down. https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom... Doesn't make sense for it to be Russia? Or does it now?

Still doesn't make sense. NS2 was held offline by Germany and could easily have had technical difficulties as well if that were to change. NS1 could have been left offline pretty much indefinitely without serious attempts at such contractual plays, because this sort of thing would of course have ended any chance of future Russian deliveries. Besides, there isn't much left that sanctions don't already target. However,…

Stop thinking that Russia is doing what's good for Russia. Because it's not what's happening: Putin is ordering Russia, to do whats either good for Putin, or just what Putin wants.

And what's good for Putin right now is not having an easy source of income for someone to distribute to his keys to power in exchange for supporting a coup (plus side-benefits like all the people leaping to blame the US).

Post reply on HN