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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#921

Post by telcy »

orloffm wrote: post #907
rurp wrote: post #248

My theory is that Putin ordered it. He recently made two major escalations, mobilization and annexation, that greatly decrease the odds of a peaceful settlement and increase the odds of him being overthrown internally. This move undercuts the leverage a new leader would have after a coup, since it will be harder to get gas flowing again following a truce. Putin seems to be staking his entire regime on this war and li…

Why doesn't he destroy the pipelines going through Ukraine then?

Because then it would be clear who did it. A sabotage in the baltic sea makes it more difficult to find the culprit and probably causes [intentional] blame of countries that might benefit from shut pipelines.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#922

Post by XorNot »

globalnode wrote: post #890
XorNot wrote: post #737

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

there are overland pipes through ukraine, poland, belarus, czech republic and austria too, so any likely putin usurpers could easily use those. wheres the rational for russia to blow them up really? those countries didnt want ns2 because it cut out their middle man charges. most likely culprit is any of those countries ( cough poland cough )

Russia is currently moving to cut it's remaining gas supply through Ukraine: https://twitter.com/GazpromEN/status/1575021274878791680

That supply, of note, has been running this whole time through the war[1] - but suddenly there is a reason to start breaking contracts right as a bunch of pipelines explode?

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-keep...

EDIT: Although on closer review, this might be coincidental since it's "just" arguments over payment. Conversely, the timing is a heck of a thing and Russia has escalated payment disputes into "and so we're cutting gas" previously.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#923

Post by foverzar »

smsm42 wrote: post #640
thiagoharry wrote: post #585

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense. Without the gas, Russia loses leverage and there would be no dependence of Russian hydrocarbons. Germany always could buy more expensive gas from Ukraine and USA, and now they have no other choice.

Pipelines can be fixed. If Germany behaves. There's always a choice. Also, there are other ways to get the gas and the oil there.

Can it? If the seawater had filled the pipeline, it is likely irreparable.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#924

Post by daniel-cussen »

dividedbyzero wrote: post #658
monkeydreams wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know that Ukraine has the capability to do this. The number of countries capable of this act is quite small.

I wonder what would be the bare minimum required to stage an operation like this, if one were willing to take big risks. Like, combat divers operating from an inconspicuous sailing yacht or the like? Sail into position, go down (80 meters should be doable with Trimix), place explosives with timed fuses (set to a few weeks?), go back up, throw the equipment overboard later, sail into Kiel with no one the wiser? Not th…

That's like week 8 of BUDS (basic underwater demolition system) in SeAL training.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#925

Post by daniel-cussen »

smsm42 wrote: post #634
cdash wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They stopped sending gas over on Nord Stream 1 with the excuse of maintenance and repairs specifically as leverage for Germany to sign off on opening their brand new pipeline Nord Stream 2 for business. Now, both pipelines have been blown up. It doesn't make any sense for it to have been Russia.

Why not? If it is stopped by the Russian order, Russians violated the contract. If it is stopped because unknown terrorists blew up the pipeline, it's force majeure, Gazprom is in the clear. Also, they have one more pipeline left. Which they are also threatening to - guess what? - shut down. https://www-moscowtimes-ru.translate.goog/2022/09/27/gazprom... Doesn't make sense for it to be Russia? Or does it now?

America would blow up oil pipelines in Chile when it was getting dangerously close to Democracy, Allende said so in his final address. Plus it's business.

Qui bono?

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#926

Post by foverzar »

RationPhantoms wrote: post #635
abathur wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK about the details underlying the argument (whether the contract is actually structured this way, etc.), but https://mobile.twitter.com/nierobmitak/status/15747490369129... mentioned the possibility that the contracts entail fines for non-delivery (which they might not have to pay if the pipeline is unusable).

Isn't that also why billionaires close to Russia have been "dying"? Their assets would be property of the state ergo Putin's coffers.

> Their assets would be property of the state

Their assets would be property of their inheritors, just as everywhere else.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#927

Post by foverzar »

hackerlight wrote: post #800
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…

It possibly is in Russia's interests. If they predict that Europe is on the verge of successfully becoming energy independent and the demise of NS2 through non-sabotage means is all but an inevitability at this point, then it's optimal for them to use that sunk cost for their own benefit, in this case framing the Ukrainians or US in order to turn Europe against Ukraine or to fracture NATO an EU cohesion by stoking di…

The infrastructure isn't free. The gas flowing through it also isn't free.

Years and billions were invested in that infrastructure.

IMO, the sheer cost would make that an overly-elaborate spectacle.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#928

Post by postingawayonhn »

mjfl wrote: post #876
postingawayonhn wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about economics, it's about winning the war. He's telling NATO to back down or he will make winter hell for their populations.

he could do it by shutting off the pipeline, which is what he was already doing. He didn't need an excuse. Furthermore, he wants to be able to turn it back on, as negotiating tool. But the explosion prevents that, with no benefit. People are saying they want to avoid fines, but the fines could never exceed the value of the intact pipeline. It's nonsense.

Damaging these pipelines is a message to NATO that they are capable of damaging the Norwegian undersea pipelines Europe now relies on.

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#929

Post by daniel-cussen »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #543
aredox wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Ukraine's famous Baltic sea combat divers.

Ukraine has a sea coast and a Navy, so I have no doubt that they have combat divers. Thus the only issue would be a logistic one. My take is that it is trivial to send people to the Baltic along with access to diving equipment and boats. Via sea route it should also be very doable to ship explosives. So it is at least plausible.

They do 100x harder shit than that every day. Navy SeALs are in 40 countries on any given day, that's just SeALs. Like no risk of death from that, no risk of needing to use SERE training, NOTHING, BUDS, basic underwater demolition, EASIEST SHIT!

Re: Gas Leak in the Baltic Sea

#930

Post by daniel-cussen »

nradov wrote: post #654
mytailorisrich wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ukraine has a sea coast and a Navy, so I have no doubt that they have combat divers. Thus the only issue would be a logistic one. My take is that it is trivial to send people to the Baltic along with access to diving equipment and boats. Via sea route it should also be very doable to ship explosives. So it is at least plausible.

Any sort of underwater demolitions is pretty much the opposite of "trivial". How much diving have you done? The real world isn't like a James Bond movie.

BUDS is literally that, every SeAL does that. Not optional.

Not accusing the SeALs just the force I'm most familiar with.

A pipeline is impossible to guard so it's so so easy, it's a cakewalk. The real challenge is the impunity, you don't want to get accused like eg Allended accused CIA of blowing up its pipelines in Chile (gasoductos y olioductos) and the train line. It's a one-dimensional structure that is vulnerable along the entire distance, and more valuable the greater the distance it covers, so more valuable as it is more vulnerable.

Really to protect a one-dimensional resource conveyor, you need retal. There's nothing else. Everybody talks about protecting themselves, yeah and what wear a helmet to cross the street? No, no helmets! Yeah then make the pipeline's steel a meter thick, to protect it.

Retal.

America does that, when terrorists blow up its pipelines in Iraq for instance, they hunt them down and make them regret doing so. Not say they're sorry, make sure it turns out to have been a bad decision in hindsight. Those pipelines don't need to be any thicker. It's the thickness of the initiator's skull that must be overcome.

Post reply on HN