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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#931

Post by foverzar »

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…

> 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.

You forgot to mention how Russia is supposed to profit from this whole situation.

> Blowing up their (now useless) pipeline is in line with another desperate move: at least try to make something useful out of it

Specifically what?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#932

Post by valbu »

yread wrote: post #211
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). *…

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

Yeah it's clear as day that this is the regular old Russian tactic to intimidate or attack and then deny, even tho everyone knows they are behind this.

The pipelines were already closed and will not open in a decade or two anyway because the war and politics. They do not lose any income so why not use it to terrorize and escalate, it's not their first time to mess with foreign underwater infrastructure. Norway->Poland pileline opening is the perfect timing for that.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#933

Post by foverzar »

sampo wrote: post #346
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. If you include the risk of getting caught or revealed (and you should), it would absolutely make no sense.

If you include the risk of getting caught, then it seems like no one did is, as it is the same risk for everyone.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#934

Post by foverzar »

labster wrote: post #847
csomar wrote: post #831

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting you wrote a very long response and yet you presented no concrete arguments that the US could be behind this. We can agree that most EU countries will not support such an incident. The only two countries who have the technical capability and the political reasons are the USA and Russia. Both are evil and ready to blow the world for their own gains. > why would they take the risk to destroy the pipelin…

That’s because there are no reasons for the US to do it. Europe is staying aligned just fine right now. Germans think Russia is an unreliable business partner, and don’t want to deal with them again. Germany is already expanding LNG port capacity to buy more North American gas. It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered; Denmark could trigger Article 5 against the United States. The US needs to show strength in A…

> It would be a tremendous risk to be discovered;

This isn't really a counterpoint, since it's all the same risk for every potential suspect.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#935

Post by foverzar »

fmajid wrote: post #898
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…

Given the ridiculous number of oligarchs getting defenestrated of late, it doesn’t seem Putin has lost his ability to cow them. The USA would be entirely right not to trust Germany, but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky, and Biden doesn’t strike me as a gambler, unlike some. Ukraine would be a good potential suspect but probably doesn’t have the capability. China could also be, turning…

> but the risks of blowback should it be caught would make it too risky

It's the same risk for every suspect, so it's not really a counterpoint.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#936

Post by foverzar »

mgfist wrote: post #790
dongobongo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the pipeline started operating, which it probably would in a few months with energy catastrophe in Europe - it would be total victory for Russia: natural gas revenues through the roof, end of war, etc etc. USA for some reason believes that Russian victory is against its interests. See Biden recently: https://twitter.com/ah114088/status/1574435558675316737

Europe had already figured out their energy supply for the winter. They weren't counting on Russia.

So what was the solution in the end? Cuz currently I only see everyone being afraid to even acknowledge that gas reserves are merely a buffer. I suspect this "figured out" might as well be yet another soothing post-truth.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#937

Post by kibwen »

shswkna wrote: post #843
kibwen wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is tinfoil-haberdashery. No, Biden did not authorize a clandestine attack on Russian infrastructure just to boost the US auto industry, nor did he subtly broadcast his nefarious intent months ago as part of some game to throw red meat to the conspiratorialists, Q-style. The US would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in such an action, and has absolutely no impetus to since it already curren…

I beg to differ. To at least consider that the sabotage is in US interest, is sound logic. Of course there are many factors at play and a lot we don’t know. The arguments in your post carry a hint of denial in them. Read other posts that outline the benefits to the US position after the sabotage, and consider them without bias. Not saying its the only explanation- but the case is worth considering.

I have no particular love for the US government or its foreign policy. At the same time, it is neither "a hint of denial" nor "bias" to reject the above claims as nonsense. There is simply no motive. NATO solidarity is at an all-time high, none of the imaginary economic benefits to the US would be worth jeopardizing that solidarity, especially since the US isn't remotely at any point of desperation. In practice it will achieve nothing (other than an environmental disaster), and even the things people imagine it might be intended to achieve are eye-rollingly petty compared to the US's actual strategic objective right now, which is holding NATO together.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#938

Post by kibwen »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #875
kibwen wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is tinfoil-haberdashery. No, Biden did not authorize a clandestine attack on Russian infrastructure just to boost the US auto industry, nor did he subtly broadcast his nefarious intent months ago as part of some game to throw red meat to the conspiratorialists, Q-style. The US would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by engaging in such an action, and has absolutely no impetus to since it already curren…

> No, Biden did not What's with the authoritative tone? You have no clue what American submarines have been up to, and if you did know, you'd be breaking the law by telling us anything about it. And it's absurd to pretend that the premise of submarines doing clandestine illegal stuff underwater is an outlandish "Q-style" 'conspiracy'.

Can you point to the commenter here who does know what any nation's subs have been up to, and isn't pulling stuff out of their ass to satisfy their geopolitical soap opera fantasies? What's "absurd" is pretending that a nation state would either need or even want to use submarines for an operation like this; reports indicate that these pipelines are at a depth of 80m, which is well within the depths that professional deep-sea divers regularly access undersea pipelines.

In practice there's not a single state on Earth that benefits from the temporary disabling of this unused pipeline, but of all the states that have something to lose from being discovered as the perpetrator, the US is near the top of the list.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#939

Post by foverzar »

djvdq wrote: post #633
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia can close the valves and noone can do anything. But russia would want the valves to be the only obstacle between their gas and germany, so germany would always have an option to sit down with russia, make some kind of a deal, and the same day, gas could be reopened. Now, with the pipes destroyed, it will probably take months to fix them, and even if people in germany protest against their governments, the talk…

USA is already selling as much gas as they can. They can't sell more than now due to technical limitations.

Source?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#940

Post by foverzar »

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #181
kstenerud wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damaging the pipeline destroys a major source of Russian leverage against Germany. And now that they're desperate enough to play the nuclear card with a "this is not a bluff" chaser, it's pretty obvious that they need all the leverage they can get.

Russia already supplied Germany via Ukrainian and Belarus pipelines. NS1 & NS2 were supplying nothing prior to this incident. Russia has lost nothing in leverage, but Putin has now gained leverage internally over energy interests who view this war (and Putin) as bad for business. Strategic narcissism is focusing on Putin's threats to the West, over his internal challenge of remaining in power.

> Russia has lost nothing in leverage

Russia has lost the option to provide extra of that much needed gas to Europe, along with billions and years of investments into that infrastructure.

> but Putin has now gained leverage internally

What exactly is this "internal leverage" and how is it supposed to work? Sorry, but this is really vague and unclear.

Post reply on HN