211–220 of 280 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forgot to mention EEUU... Think about to WHO we are buying now gas. PD: Also, we can try to not tarnish more the anarchists. Probably they would be the last guys to try to blow it .
For those confused like me, EEUU is a Spanish contraction for the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One must build elaborate, implausible motivations for everyone in order to maintain the "It's definitely Russia" theory when there are more plausible, direct motivations to hand in the "Anyone but Russia" theory. Who stands to benefit from permanently ending European dependence on Russian fuel? Norway? To conclude Norway (it's not Norway, but for example), one can simply point at the loss of a competitor. No weird 4D…
Two points: 1) Priors. Russia loves their clandestine operations to kill somebody or blow stuff up in europe. Be it weapons depots in Czechia or bulgaria, poisoning opponents with radioactive materials or nerve agents your various russian intelligence agencies are there for you. This happened recently, not some cold war stuff. 2.) You are forgetting to include the possible downsides for getting caught in your analysi…
They did it in sovereign territory, one of which is a NATO member. So, no, there is not "Basically no consequence". There is a very real likelihood that a NATO member will invoke Article 5.
Not only that, the direct consequences are dire for Russia at a time when they desperately need leverage over Europe. Now they have none.
No. 4D chess and contorted motivations.
> USA: Massive
Agreed. I don't consider the US a likely suspect.
Everyone seems to know it was Russia and is just casting out ideas to find a plausible motivation. I find that completely baffling. For opportunity, consider that while setting up the pipeline needs a weird high-pressure residence and special training, blowing it up takes a fishing boat, scuba gear and underwater explosives. The equipment and training is cheap and available. So, those with opportunity is almost anyon…
>The equipment and training is cheap and available Ive been wondering why attacks on such a infrastructure is not more common - those pipes, internet cables, etc?
There have been “suspicious” accidental cable breaks, however.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a clip of Biden speaking, what does it matter what channel it's posted on?
That's the thing. It's a single clip. Where is the rest? What's the context? Is it even the real clip? Those are questions you should ask yourself whenever you see some random internet dude post something. And a channel that posts only the russian side of the story and calls itself "russiaz for victory" doesn't seem very neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two points: 1) Priors. Russia loves their clandestine operations to kill somebody or blow stuff up in europe. Be it weapons depots in Czechia or bulgaria, poisoning opponents with radioactive materials or nerve agents your various russian intelligence agencies are there for you. This happened recently, not some cold war stuff. 2.) You are forgetting to include the possible downsides for getting caught in your analysi…
> Russia: Basically none. They blew up their own pipelines. They did it in sovereign territory, one of which is a NATO member. So, no, there is not "Basically no consequence". There is a very real likelihood that a NATO member will invoke Article 5. Not only that, the direct consequences are dire for Russia at a time when they desperately need leverage over Europe. Now they have none. No. 4D chess and contorted motiv…
Russia blew up weapons depots in Bulgaria and Czechia, killing two people.
You really think that they would not blow up their own pipeline in the EEZ of a NATO country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't worry. It wasn't the US. Not really our style. Sure, the CIA pulls dirty tricks, but those are quiet, in-the-shadows skullduggery where no one's paying attention. CIA doesn't do big and loud where other Americans can see it. Plus, motivations are wrong. The US catastrophically ends European energy dependence on Russia so that... it can compete with the Middle East and Russia and Canada on a more equal footing?…
There is Stuxnet and its predecessor, which blew up a pipeline! https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r... The U.S. motivation is that it has tried to shut down energy trades between the Soviet Union/Russia and Germany for more than 50 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the thing. It's a single clip. Where is the rest? What's the context? Is it even the real clip? Those are questions you should ask yourself whenever you see some random internet dude post something. And a channel that posts only the russian side of the story and calls itself "russiaz for victory" doesn't seem very neutral.
It’s very well-known. I remember it playing on CNN in February when it happened. There was a lot of discourse in the media about it.
https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-germanys-scholz-stress-u...
As it appears, there were talks behind the stage, because shortly after the invasion they announced the shutdown of certification:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
It doesn't make much sense to attack an ally and - at worst - risk invoking article 5 against half the EU. Especially if the goal was already achieved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> it generally makes absolutely no sense for Russia to be behind this Of course it does - Poland is entirely relying on the Norway to Poland gas pipeline, if that goes then a country of 50 million people has no gas this winter. Blowing up the Nordstream was(to me) a clear signal that EU needs to be careful or the Norwegian pipelines are going up next.
OK, let's assume that is the case. Now the EU is very careful about the Norwegian pipeline, and surveillance of this pipeline dramatically increases to defend it from potential Russian sabotage. What has Russia gained with this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NS2 was started ten years ago and cost around nine billion euros. Nine billion buys a lot of insulation, heat pumps, and wind turbines over ten years. Wheras NS2 was only ever needed so that Russia can turn off gas for Ukraine without turning it off for Germany.
I think it was more about Germany being able to buy gas straight from Russia without having to pay fees to Poland/Ukraine/Belarus/whoever for transporting gas through their territory.
Poland takes ~200 million euro for 30 bcm (0.15 bcm/m euro) over ~700 km of pipeline [1]. NS2 would cost 9.5 billion while transporting 110 bcm (0.01 bcm/m euro) [2]. It would take over a decade to break even (ignoring maintenance costs or any sort of cost overrun) and the world has been moving away from fossil fuels so it'd break even at a time when nobody wants it.
[1]: https://www.dw.com/en/can-ukraine-do-without-russian-gas-tra... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#:~:text=For%20Nord....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone downstream suggested dragging explosives on a rope, detonating when they hit the pipeline. Wouldn't even need to stop.
Sure it becomes much simpler if you remove the diving aspect to it, or simply remove the need to return to the surface alive. I would suspect dragging an explosive with a rope would take a long time, enough that radar and other ships would likely notice the behavior, especially if you intend to hit the pipeline 3 times on 3 different locations. Really expensive sonar would reduce the required time, as would really pr…