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

91–100 of 176 posts

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#91

Post by MichaelCollins »

swamp40 wrote: post #78

Shaped charges are easy to make [0], and technical divers can go to 70 meters. I don't think it's out of line to think that German eco-terrorists could have done it. So the whodunnit list is quite long. [0] https://youtu.be/UHoqYi8XOA4?t=427

A non-state actor is possible, but unlikely. It would require an organization, a small group at least, that had the inclination, opportunity, skill and resources. Any one or two of those is easy, but to actually do it requires all of those simultaneously.

Furthermore such a serious attack from eco-terrorists would be fairly unprecedented. It's a far cry from torching a resort or tree spiking.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#92

Post by tut-urut-utut »

rfrey wrote: post #22
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.

There is exactly one imperialist aggressor in this conflict, and it isn't the US.

There is only one Empire on this planet, and that is the US. Since the collapse of the British Empire, there's no other country that falls so perfectly into the definition of an empire.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#93

Post by beeforpork »

gonzo41 wrote: post #17
snarkconjecture wrote: post #14

Unless one of the leaks caused all the others, it seems like a hell of a coincidence for them to all happen on the same day by chance after sitting there for years.

The pipes are 4 inches of steel wrapped in 6 inches of concrete. It's hard to see that being something that would rupture easily by accident. Especially 4 at a time.

4cm, not 4inches, IIRC. Plus concrete, again 6cm, not 6inches. Still massive.

The weight ist 13 tonnes steel + 13 tonnes concrete per segment, IIRC, diameter is 1.1m and segment length is 13m. Steel is ~7kg/dm³ => You can now calculate the wall thickness.

OK, OK, let's not talk: 130 dm * ((11/2dm + X)² - (11/2 dm)²) * \pi * 7kg/dm³ = 13000kg => X = 0.39dm

EDIT: Corrected the sign...

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#94

Post by henrikschroder »

stuckinhell wrote: post #51

It's clearly not an accident. It's also hard to believe it was Russia, since now they can't blackmail Europe. Both Biden and Victoria Nuland have both publicly threaded to take out the pipelines on video no less.

The best reasoning I've seen on the matter is this:

Countries in Europe have been pretty clear that no-one is going to back down on supporting Ukraine in order to get some cheap Russian gas. So the pipeline is useless to Putin.

However, a rival oligarch/military leader/whatever in Russia could try to cut a deal with Europe and say that they promise to kill Putin and get Russian troops out of Ukraine, in exchange for agreements to resume the gas trade and no questions asked about who the money for the gas is going to.

So the pipeline is useless to Russia as long as Putin is in charge, but it's also a threat to Putin, personally, since it can be used to fund a coup against him. Therefore, he decided to sabotage it. If you think of Putin as a paranoid mafia boss foremost, and a politician and world leader second, this explanation makes sense.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#96

Post by room606 »

cpursley wrote: post #38
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…

It's called burning bridges. Both domestically and internationally. It signals that Russia is committed to seeing the war through regardless of what the West does and it consolidates power domestically by discouraging any potential conspirators from acting against Putin since destroying the pipelines makes it virtually impossible for any replacement to resume delivery of gas to Europe

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#97

Post by sudden_dystopia »

rmind wrote: post #50
cpursley wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Because they would have to pay billions for not delivering the gas due to the breach of contracts. Legally, you cannot turn off the taps just because. Moreover, Russia can still supply very significant quantities of gas via Belarus and Ukraine, so they retain the leverage to blackmail the EU.

Legally, you can’t just invade another country but that didn’t stop Russia and it has never stopped the US. Do you think Russia is going to care about the legality of debts they owe to a system that is sanctioning them? What more can we penalize them with if they don’t pay, nukes? They are literally removing themselves from the system the west has set up and are creating a new one with other BRIC nations to try to compete.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#98

Post by regularfry »

photochemsyn wrote: post #65

These two pipelines have very different operational histories so the simultaneous formation of a 'methane hydrate plug' in both pipelines seems highly unlikely at best. There's also no apparent reason why such a methane hydrate plug should cause seismic-scale explosions in both pipelines. As far as motivation, the US agenda on Europe's fossil fuel market since at least 2008 has been to lock out Russian suppliers (who…

You're underestimating the sensitivity of seismic sensors. Bear in mind that they picked up not only the initial rupture, but also the noise of the escaping gas after the fact.

I've been firmly in camp incompetence-before-malice since they went pop; the 17 hour gap just doesn't feel right for an intentional attack. Shoddy maintenance causing catastrophic failure by some mechanism even if it's not hydrate plugs makes at least as much sense to me as geopolitical tomfoolery.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#99

Post by MichaelCollins »

rmind wrote: post #83
MichaelCollins wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [1]: 1) to claim force majeure and avoid massive penalties Gazprom would have to pay for the breach of contract (now they just blame the West and good luck proving in courts who actually did it); This doesn't make much sense to me. Even if we assume the premise that they have such a motivation and can't.. simply refuse to pay fines.. there are easier ways for them to destroy their ability to deliver gas without cau…

I think they calculated that the Nord Stream projects are pretty much dead in the current circumstances. It was a political project to start with. Also, I think it is a statement to EU: your underwater infrastructure is not safe.

> Also, I think it is a statement to EU: your underwater infrastructure is not safe.

I don't buy this "blow up our pipeline to implicitly threaten others" narrative at all, for the simple reason that all the involved countries knew Russia had this capability already. If it was meant as a demonstration, it would be a demonstration of madness, not technical ability.

Re: Nordstream: An Accident?

#100

Post by roenxi »

I miss the people who were good at realpolitik. What happened barely matters. The situation appears to be escalating, there is a mobilised Russian army to worry about now.

People are underestimating how unpredictable and damaging war is. Throwing weapons and sanctions at Russia is not a plausible path to peace and prosperity. This should have been Iraq 2.0.

If the situation goes biblical, I'd rather be reading about turning the other cheek than the apocalypse.

Post reply on HN