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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#771

Post by mattnewton »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #725
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…

Russia could have just turned off the tap. The sabotage ensures Europe can't back off from the US sanctions now. Wrecks Germany's economy, thereby eliminating a rival. VW et al are already talking about moving production to the US. And Biden promised to take care of NS 2 back in February itself. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

The tap was already turned off. I think everyone at the time understood Biden's comments to mean the nordstream 2 pipeline wouldn't be operational because of diplomatic pressure on Germany. And that's exactly what happened, Germany decided not to certify it and it was left functional but not pumping any gas (the current leak was likely just enough to keep the line pressurized).

I also don't think the US sees Germany as a "rival" in this way at all, they are a strong trading partner.

The motivations are not that clear for any actor really. Someone wanted to burn a potential bridge between the EU and Russia, but it's not clear to me why the US would want to lose their biggest carrot (immediately dumping cash into Russia if sanctions were lifted and gas could be bought), or why Russia would want to lose a pipeline they invested so much into, sitting there and just tempting the west to Germany to ease sanctions.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#773

Post by mushbino »

yznovyak wrote: post #449
eloff wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So that doesn't look like an accident. I have difficulty imagining accidental ignition in an underwater gas pipeline. Where would the oxygen come from? Plus it's more than one explosion on the same day - can't be a coincidence. The next question is, who did it? It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. They invested huge sums of money to b…

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…

No post body was provided.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#774

Post by mattnewton »

XorNot wrote: post #737
jmyeet wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Online I've seen some takes that America is responsible for this. I get why. America's foreign policy has done and continues to do some appalling things (eg any number of coups). The idea is that the US doesn't want Europe to be reliant on Russian gas or that Russia may be able to use the prospect of that gas (coming into winter) to sway Europe with respect to Ukraine. I don't buy it. The blowback potential would be…

The question no one asks is "how long does it take to repair a break in the pipeline?" The whole pipeline is still there, this is damaged sections. This would be a known risk of an undersea pipeline: stuff undersea gets damaged by ships all the time [1]. I would wager, were we in normal circumstances, we'd be talking 6 months. There'd be big money at stake, vital infrastructure, and that's about as long as you've got…

6 months of political bickering over whether we should do it or not is an eternity over turning a valve on an already functional and apparently pressurized pipeline ready to go.

I won't pretend to understand the motivations here but it definitely further drives the wedge between the EU and Russia.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#775

Post by Covzire »

Animatronio wrote: post #691
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1. NS1 and/or NS2 were ready to reopen according to Putin if Europe were to lift sanctions. 2. EU is trying to stop being reliant on Russian gas, so far it isn't fait accompli. 3. Based on 1+2 we could assume someone wants to push EU as far away from Russia as possible as fast as possible(regarding gas supplying, to be clear) So again, who profits and has the means to do accomplish such feat: 1. USA: very vocal again…

China benefits greatly, Russian oil and gas now have only one reliable buyer for the foreseeable future. Invading Taiwan is now easier since blockading the shipping lanes from the ME will have little impact on the Chinese war machine if they get reliable oil from Russia.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#776

Post by syntheweave »

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #747
WinstonSmith84 wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pol…

If Russia were supplied with precision weaponry they would be trading casualties more evenly with Ukraine, but they aren't getting anything like HIMARS or Javelins. Most of it falls under sanctions and there's little reason for erstwhile allies and trading partners to help, because they recognize that a Russian loss here is an invitation to plunder what's left of the country. The ability of the world to shrug off loss of Russian energy is directly correlated to Russia's bargaining position here, and now that a major pipeline is down, the issue has been forced.

What the battlefield figures point to is that while Russia can hold a line, it's using much more ammo to do it, and this strains their supply logistics, which are further pressured by long-range missle systems. Adding more troops when you're already supply-constrained means falling back on a Soviet-era strategy of throwing bodies at every problem and, most likely, letting some freeze to death stranded without even entering combat.

However, modern Russia doesn't have the demographics necessary to hold out in a meatgrinder. The Red Army was able to do that successfully because they were drawing from a younger and more agrarian population that could be "born to die". As soon as your draft starts eating into older urbanites with skills, careers, and families, unrest is going to get out of control and put national sovereignty at threat.

There's a reason why modern armies have moved towards a professionalized approach since the mid-20th century: it's a lower-footprint method that sustains high tech industries, and therefore is easier to gain support for. The entire narrative changed when it stopped being a "special military operation" and they announced mobilization: there's no more illusion of it being a professional war.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#777

Post by abraxas »

mushbino wrote: post #773
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…

Quoted post unavailable.

No post body was provided.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#778

Post by kibwen »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #725
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…

Russia could have just turned off the tap. The sabotage ensures Europe can't back off from the US sanctions now. Wrecks Germany's economy, thereby eliminating a rival. VW et al are already talking about moving production to the US. And Biden promised to take care of NS 2 back in February itself. https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8

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 currently has the upper hand in the overall geopolitical conflict. The pipeline can be repaired within months, and the sanctions were already going to last for at least that long. It buys the US none of the the things you mention, even in the fantasy world where someone thinks that those would comprise the US's grand strategic goals.

To be clear, with our current information, the sabotage makes sense for nobody, not for the US, not for Russia. The only reason people are attributing it to Russia is because, of all the people currently in the room, Putin is the one acting the most generally irrational. But if we assume irrationality, it could just as easily be any random entity; Iran, or North Korea, or Greenpeace, or mermaids, or the shambling, zombified corpse of Abraham Lincoln.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#779

Post by twelve40 »

libertine wrote: post #667
LawTalkingGuy wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hugely positive for Ukraine. They'd have done it on day-one if it wouldn't have looked bad. Less income for Russia, less for Russia to divide its allies with. This is a strong negative for Russia. They had control of the pipeline and thus could dangle the offer of gas, now they cannot. Their leverage is gone.

That positive was gained when Russia closed NS1 supply, which was due to end on German terms. After that win, it was set in stone that Germany was done with Russian gas.

"done"? why would you just make shit up? 42 million cubic meters per day are moving from Russia through Ukraine to Germany right now.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#780

Post by mjfl »

axus wrote: post #260
Roark66 wrote: post #145

I don't see a mention that today is the day Poland officially opens up its pipeline to Denmark and Norway. The pipeline Russia (and to a much lesser extent Germany) put a lot of resources trying to jeopardize. Some of the things those two countries did include: Financing of various "grassroots ecology groups" that managed to find an extremely important field mouse (no joke!) habitat on the planned route which caused…

I liked the theory that Russia did it as a warning that they can blow up Poland's pipeline anytime.

Nordstream is at least 500 miles long and billions of dollars of Russian investment built to provide income long past the wars end. There's no abstract 'warning' worth destroying that investment. Just no.
Post reply on HN