Intense amount of conspiracy chatter is in this thread. Let the dust settle a bit and see what shakes out.
To be fair - I do understand how fun it can be to play at conspiracy theories especially given the circumstances here.
Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
321–330 of 1001 posts
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Quoted post unavailable.
Spread of Stuxnet is easily tracked: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
Iran had the most infections and the virus is designed to attack centrifuges. Israel took over the code base during the Obama administration and made the virus more viral, but the targeting remained the same.
Essentially what you've written here is not only inaccurate but I'd say a conspiracy theory in that you're implying the US took custodianship of the code back and began using it again, which is entirely unfounded.
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#323Earlier 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). *…
Could also be shoddy workmanship. Country of origin for the workman is at best a vague hint of quality, and a poor construction can take years if not decades to fail. Keystone's XL decommissioning planned penned out that they expected a minimum of 50 years of service from that pipeline, but over half the pipelines in the US carrying oil and gas are in excess of 60 years old and still operating. Until the investigatio…
It would be very coincidental when both fail the same day due to shoddy workmanship.
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#324If 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…
Not Poland. Not any country with a pipeline that can be similarly retaliated against. There is disagreement, conflict even, between Putin and his energy sector. Effectively destroying these pipelines is a pure-Putin way of reminding disgruntled Russian elite whose still in-charge. If not Putin, the UK, who desperately wants Germany to confront Russia, free of hopes not doing so will magically open NS1 or NS2.
[deleted]
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#325Earlier 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. That would be a tragic miscalculation. If it comes out that Ukraine is responsible, German public sentiment will turn hard . No more military shipments, maybe even rapproachement with Russia. If it's a state actor, I'd think about Poland first.
If...
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Now, even with internal pressures of protesting people in germany, there is no incentive for germans to sit down with the russians Yes, and that's exactly what Russia wants to signal now: "we're ready to go all in and use strategic nukes against NATO countries, we don't have anything to go back to".
Why would russia want that? Russia wants to remove nato from ukraine, take the prorussian regions, and then continue business as usual... ie. selling gas to EU.
Russia would be happiest to remove NATO from the equation entirely. Steamrolling Ukraine, sowing dissent within the alliance, and then grabbing one or more of the Baltic states would have done that.
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#327The 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…
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. Especially if it is a demonstration of Ukrainian cyberwarfare capabilities.
I mostly agree but... You could make the same argument for bits of the middle east, Norway and the USA (the US refuses to export gas to the EU to make US industrial products more competitive).
Sabotage? Maybe! Ukraine? Maybe or maybe others!
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sabotage makes sense, but by whom? Surely Russia has no interest in sabotaging the pipelines that give them leverage over Europe. Without the pipelines, the whole "you lift the sanctions, we deliver natural gas" game is gone. Even if unlikely to happen, it would have been an important psychological and political factor over the winter. Meanwhile European powers don't seem to have an incentive. They would benefit from…
> Meanwhile European powers don't seem to have an incentive Depends who. I could very well imagine a few countries (my own, France, for example) forcing a situation where energy-driven complacency isn't on the table. But it does make more sense for this being something that comes from the US.
The US doesn't need to do this, nor does France. Interested parties would include the Baltics, Poland, the UK and even Russian factions. Although the UK might put unecessary pressure on its own gas acquisitions by doing this. Ukraine is excluded because Germany would refrain from giving them any more weapons then.
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#329Earlier 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). *…
Could also be shoddy workmanship. Country of origin for the workman is at best a vague hint of quality, and a poor construction can take years if not decades to fail. Keystone's XL decommissioning planned penned out that they expected a minimum of 50 years of service from that pipeline, but over half the pipelines in the US carrying oil and gas are in excess of 60 years old and still operating. Until the investigatio…
Not for both pipelines to explode within 24 hour. That is too much of a coincident.
Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea
#330I don't think it was the US but the CIA managed to blew up a Russian (USSR) pipeline using just software in 1982. Maybe this was hackers? Maybe state actors (could be anyone from the US to North Korea). Maybe Ecoterrorists. Maybe Ransom gangs?