Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nordstream: An Accident?

thelawdogfiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 176 posts

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#31

Post by Filligree »

Ekaros wrote: post #11
rfrey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.

Factions in Russia do gain from it; specifically, Putin’s.

There’s no point in overthrowing him to turn the pipeline back on if the pipeline doesn’t exist.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#33

Post by teekert »

MichaelCollins wrote: post #12
impostervt wrote: post #2

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Hanlon's razor is foolish; every who's up to no good knows the "pretend it was an accident" trick. Children figure it out. Not assuming malice is a good policy in ordinary everyday situations, but the razor lacks that nuance and says to Never assume malice, which is going too far.

Still best to initially assume no malicy because it is insulting if it really wasn't. I typically adhere to Hanlon's razor because of this.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#34

Post by MichaelCollins »

ravi-delia wrote: post #21
Ekaros wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.

Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now

> Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity.

If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#35

Post by MauranKilom »

Can someone explain the chemistry of natural gas exploding by itself?

In my understanding, you need oxygen for that to happen. There's a bunch of oxygen in the H2O, but what exactly would the products of an explosive reaction between natural gas and water be? Hydrogen and CO2? Don't think there's much energy to be released there...

I can totally buy the "you depressurized only one end, so you had a plug slam into the next bend of the pipeline", and that might plausibly register as an explosion on seismic detectors. But hydrocarbons by themselves aren't explosive - they need something to react with.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#36

Post by RajT88 »

Ekaros wrote: post #11
rfrey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.

I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored.

But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail.

I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding.

The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US.

I don't know who that leaves...

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#38

Post by cpursley »

rmind wrote: post #27

So far the most plausible theory is that Russia sabotaged the pipelines for two reasons [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (we are talking billions here; now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); 2) to further blackmail and coerce the European nations (particularly Germany and Italy) who depend on Rus…

Your theory just doesn't check out. With the pipelines destroyed, Russia can't blackmail the EU with energy as easily as they could before. And why would they destroy infrastructure that they poured billions into when they could have just turned off the taps any time they pleased?

The pipelines now being destroyed is a really bad thing for Russia, a worse thing for the EU and a great situation for the USA (and Poland, who just opened a pipeline). Both Biden and Nuland have both publicly threatened to take out the pipelines. Ukraine has also lobbied hard against them.

I mean, it very well could be the Russians. They certainly have the capability - but I'm struggling to see the logic behind cutting off their dealmaking hand.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#39

Post by T-zex »

jcranmer wrote: post #18

There is at least one factual inaccuracy here--Nordstream 1 was not cut off after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It was running at more or less usual capacity until early June, when the flow was cut by about 60%. It was then shut off in July for regular yearly maintenance window. It returned at 40% capacity for a while, before being slowed to 20% capacity in late July, and then shut off again at the end of August. So…

And NS2 was not operational at all, therefore the accident hypothesis is less likely there.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#40

Post by nix23 »

cinntaile wrote: post #20
nix23 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The weight of the random-press aka "we don't know it, but the CIA already told us that could happen in the future, and therefore it must be true and it was russia" sound's like a big minus weight.

I think we are fairly certain it's not an accident?

I think he writes down a possibility and we should not pointing fingers until we have evidence. The press ATM act's more like "Live of Brian":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_hlMK7tCks

See also the hint from the past aka ""russian" submarine's at sweden's coast":

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0B788MB9J/ref=dbs_a_def_r...

Post reply on HN