Live data from Hacker News

Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

forsvaret.dk

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#861

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…

Some counterpoints: The Ukrainians were fighting with "the army they had", and only recently are new units with new weapons and new training being brought to bear.

The West has near-infinite appetite to provide arms to the Ukraine. Why?

- the military industrial complex gets profit - Putin is a ghoul and disliked throughout all levels of Western governments - there is strong popular support for Ukraine - strategically a strong buffer state of Ukraine neutralizes Russia long term - once Ukraine wins, Belarus will be surrounded by NATO or just-as-good-as-NATO nations, and Lukashenko will be toppled, and a NATO friendly government installed. So that's not just Ukraine as a buffer state, that is the Baltics, Belarus, and Ukraine. Westernized, trained, militarily capable, integrated with NATO.

The conscripts are useless, have no equipment, and are being delivered to the front for WINTER. They won't have winter equipment. They won't be supplied. Existing forces aren't being supplied. This will be a humanitarian disaster. Supply lines? Russia won't supply them, and that which is sent will be plundered or redirected.

The elite of Russia's armed forces have already been gutted and defeated.

Theses strategic weapons... are they like Russia's air force? What heavy weaponry? The heavy weapons that were sent are destroyed, the artillery is being neutralized by superior HIMARS. Russia knows each escalation of weaponry results in better arms being sent to Ukraine, and a more militarily capable Ukraine in the long run.

Why are you portraying the South as a permanent victory? Were you portraying the North as a permanent victory as well a month ago? Russia's southern victory is temporary. Russia lost the north because they sent all their forces to the South... where 20,000 soldiers reportedly were abandoned or trapped across a river.

And... does Putin have cancer? He does appear increasing ill.

While winter will slow a counterattack, likely it will further devastate Russian morale.

In WWII, the Russian conscripts were trapped between Russian machine guns if they retreated, or annihilation by the Germans. The Ukrainians will accept them as POWs, and provide aid. This is a key difference. What percentage of conscripts will simply surrender as soon as possible?

Russia's soft touch is debatable: is it restraint, or a non-functioning military? So far it appears to be non-functional.

If Russia keeps saber-rattling on nukes, and the west views Ukraine as a functional state, NATO can provide Ukraine with nukes. But I suspect Putin will be toppled if he continues to threaten nuclear armageddon.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#862
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason for Russia to sabotage it is as a show of force. "If we can hit our pipeline we can hit your pipeline, too". In unrelated news a brand new pipeline going from Norway to Poland through the Baltic sea opened just yesterday https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan... Talking about poor maintenance in a thread about registered underwater explosions sounds like FUD

"We have a saying in Russia, “to bomb Voronezh.” Voronezh is a Russian city not too far from the Ukrainian border, but the phrase does not refer to bombings by Ukraine. It refers to the Russian authorities’ perverse habit of retaliating against their own citizens in response to the actions of other governments." https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/27/opinion/russia-mobilizati...

[deleted]

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#863

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> between two clearly defined sides One should note: "between two clearly defined sides" but also with a few dozen other factions supporting one side or the other as a proxy war and negotiating with one side or the other to attempt to manipulate food and energy supply chains on a global scale.

It's not a proxy war, it's just a war, and like many other wars in history there are people supporting either side.

Yes. Thank you. It is important to be strict about this. Nations supporting and possibly benefiting from a war does not mean it has to be a proxy war.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#864

If 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…

My first thought was Poland too, but don't rule out Russia

> Russia wants the taps capable of being turned ON at their discretion, not permanently broken.

I'm not an expert, but I read somewhere that Gazprom could escape a penalty for not delivering the gas that their contract states.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#865
post #849

If 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…

> It could be argued that since Europe has already decided to never turn on Nordstream again... If true, I don't understand why Poland would even need to do this. I'm going to go with Russia for reasons yet unknown because it's something only a shitty country like Russia would do.

Maybe Gazprom has penalties in their contract when they don't deliver the gas. This way they could blame it on external factors. I read it somewhere but can't remember where.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#866

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the pipeline is effectively destroyed. That’s kind of insane.

You are not wrong. It’s a feat of engineering to have a roughly 1200 km pipeline operate smoothly with no safety or reliability issues over 10 years just to get blown up. Billions of dollars just down the drain.

So it’s like Yahoo?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#867
post #54

The 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…

I wonder how it compares to the 1982 pipeline explosion the US caused in a similar situation:

https://www.smh.com.au/world/cold-war-hotted-up-when-sabotag...

At the time, it was the largest non-nuclear, man-made explosion in history.

(The grammar of the first few paragraphs of that story is odd, but the source it cites is solid, and it gets better after a paragraph or two -- couldn't find a better link.)

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe needs the gas. Not enough LNG stations to import this amount. Also prices are absurdly high. Saying Europe doesn't need Russian gas sounds almost like propoganda.

This sounds like politicians promising something, that they'll fail to deliver in a few weeks... as a european, i've heard this many, many times before. As someone from the balkans, i look at first signs of politicials lieing (they're moving their lips).

This!

Taking into account their long-term planning skills there is no reason to assume they know what they're doing.

I assume they're saying it to avoid a panic or increasing prices.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#869
post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not really sure how they could have both failed explosively (based on seismic evidence) within 24hrs … this is either the one of the unlikeliest un-exploded ordinance event in history… or someone did this deliberately. Seismologists are pretty good at telling explosions from earthquakes and other things because they are one of the most common noises they have to clean out when studying natural events.

There is another option which is being discussed in Norwegian media now - that the Russians have used the pipelines essentially for storage of excess gas (Seeing as the pipelines are basically, combined, a 5M cubic meter pressure vessel) That would go a long way towards explaining how several ruptures happened in relatively short succession - pipes being loaded up with too much gas (after all, the more gas stored, th…

Simultaneous ruptures could be caused by sabotaging software. See my other comment; the US did something similar to Russia in 1982.

These days, it wouldn't surprise me if it was script kiddies on Shodan.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#870
post #854
post #830

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It makes sense to stop selling gas to the EU, but Russia already did that weeks ago. What makes little sense is then blowing up the pipeline. Russia were already not selling gas, why would they take the extra step of blowing up the pipeline? That removes it as possible leverage for future negotiations. And if you have the capability to blow up pipelines, why not blow up all the other pipelines transporting gas from S…

My experience of such discussions hints that they lead nowhere. It is a classical mystery. It is impossible to solve without additional information. But if we need to guess based on our current knowledge, then Putin is the best bet: he is a liar, he disrespect all the rules, he likes sudden unexpected moves, he likes to act undercover. I know no other entity that can have reasons to blow up pipelines who matches bett…

It's certainly possible.

But Putin has been operating with good internal logic this entire time (even if the assumptions driving that logic have been flawed at points).

And I'm not really sure what logic would cause him to attack Nordstream. The two best ideas I have are:

1. He wants to remove an option of retreat for Germany. Putin things that with Nordstream inactive, Germany can wait until they get low on gas in the middle of winter before crawling back to Russia and conceding in exchange for gas. But if it's damaged, Germany kind of need to start repairing it now, and Putin can force them to concede sooner. And Putin probably feels short on time.

2. Putin is already planning for a civil war, and doesn't think he will control Nordstream during a civil war. By destroying Nordstream, it will be harder for some civil war faction to turn it back on.

Neither are great theories. At least without some extra evidence to suggest Putin is thinking along one (or both) of these lines.

Post reply on HN