Nord Stream Gas Leaks Raise Allegations of Sabotage

[bunsen82]

Why is that ‘obvious’?

The most obvious benefactor is Ukraine, because this eliminates a Russian-German means to bypass them for energy.
People are protesting in Germany and it’s not even October yet.

Poland is an obvious benefactor as well, since they don’t want the Germans to have any leverage to cut deals with Russia. Poland’s new pipeline from Norwegian gas fields opening points to another way this benefits Poland.

The PNAC/neocon crowd running US policy benefit because this prevents the Germans from making any deals with Russia, and makes them more reliant on the U.S.

What is Russia’s ‘obvious’ benefit to blowing up their own infrastructure to prevent the possibility of delivering their gas production? I’m open to examining Russian motives, I’m just not clear what they would be. Why would Russia do this to themselves?

The simplest answer is most likely the correct one. Who has been causing the most mischief in the last year - Russia. So what you are implying now is Poland, US or Ukraine did this - with might I say no evidence.

However there are now multiple reports of a Russian war ships in the area by europeans. Why would Russia do it - I gave one plausible reason, they are concerned about the declining natural gas prices and tried to cause the prices to go up. I also think Putin as leader is becoming more unstable.

So lets not do some long diatribe on possibilities. Yes there are possibilities, but the most likely outcome is Russia with the evidence also supporting this.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html

 

[seminole97]

The simplest answer is most likely the correct one. Who has been causing the most mischief in the last year - Russia.

So the motive in your opinion is ‘mischief’ and the Russians decided to prank themselves by blowing up their gas delivery method that they spent billions building?

 

[bunsen82]

So the motive in your opinion is ‘mischief’ and the Russians decided to prank themselves by blowing up their gas delivery method that they spent billions building?

If they wanted to repair could repair it and be operational again within a couple months. 2. European countries are trying to get completely away from russian resources. They already have plans in place. Effectively I would think Putin may say screw it, I am not going to allow for another drop of energy to go over there and we will see how they deal with it this winter. That pipeline was dead in the water after his "mischief for the second one that they put all the money into because of his actions.

So do you acknowledge a Russian war ship was in the area? Do you acknowledge there is no other supporting evidence of anyone else doing it? So who exactly is the dumb one?

 

[hwk23]

Why would Russia do it - I gave one plausible reason, they are concerned about the declining natural gas prices and tried to cause the prices to go up.

That is not plausible. Germany is the biggest importer of Russian gas. They previously imported twice as much as the next biggest customer. Again, Russia wouldn't need to blow up their own pipeline that cost them $11b to build. They could just turn it off.

 

[bunsen82]

That is not plausible. Germany is the biggest importer of Russian gas. They previously imported twice as much as the next biggest customer. Again, Russia wouldn't need to blow up their own pipeline that cost them $11b to build. They could just turn it off.

2 reasons, prices are going down for natural gas, this in theory should artificially increase it. 2. When dealing with an irrational person nothing is off the table.

 

[hwk23]

2 reasons, prices are going down for natural gas, this in theory should artificially increase it. 2. When dealing with an irrational person nothing is off the table.

You can make up any BS and say it's an irrational person doing it. Doesn't make it true. Prices also go up if Russia just quits selling, no need to blow anyhting up for that reason.

 

[BelemNole]

Russia’s Purported Sabotage Of The Nord Stream Pipeline Marks A Point Of No Return

This is not the first time the Russians have transparently lied about energy infrastructure damage to weaponize their energy resources or geographical position as a transit country.

www.forbes.com

 

[seminole97]

If they wanted to repair could repair it and be operational again within a couple months.

So they blew it up because they can fix it?
That’s an unconvincing motive.

2. European countries are trying to get completely away from russian resources. They already have plans in place. Effectively I would think Putin may say screw it, I am not going to allow for another drop of energy to go over there and we will see how they deal with it this winter.

He had already done that by turning it off.
Blowing it up doesn’t improve Russia’s position, because it removes their energy leverage. They can’t offer what they can’t supply.
That’s not a logical motive.

So do you acknowledge a Russian war ship was in the area?

It’s the Baltic, it has Russian and NATO warships in it.

“A Danish official said to CNN that Russian ships regularly operate in the region.”

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

America is the only logical suspect. We had the means to do it, the motive to do, we said we were going to do it, and our response (or lack there of) is pretty telling.

Not the only one, but certainly a prime suspect.

But America is a pretty big thing. What part of America?

The Pentagon?

The CIA?

Some corporation or private consortium?

If either the Pentagon or the CIA, would that be with Presidential approval? A rogue operation?

Charlie Wilson's War, anybody?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Russia’s Purported Sabotage Of The Nord Stream Pipeline Marks A Point Of No Return

This is not the first time the Russians have transparently lied about energy infrastructure damage to weaponize their energy resources or geographical position as a transit country.

www.forbes.com

"This is not the first time the Russians have — in my opinion — transparently lied about energy infrastructure damage to weaponize their energy resources or geographical position as a transit country."

Well sure, but in this case everyone agrees that the damage is real. So Russia isn't lying about the damage. Which sort of invalidates that whole argument.

But he does make another point that seems sensible:

"However, the attacks on Nord Stream are more dire than anything we previously saw. This act of sabotage signals a point of no return. The economic damage caused by these attacks is going to land Europe in a recession as deep as the recession of 2009."

So that line of reasoning leads back to the question: cui bono? More specifically, is there anyone who isn't going to be hurt, or might come out ahead in the event of a deep EU recession?

Yeah, there might be a few of those. The US and China come to mind. Along with a few smaller players.

The US because we will be profiting on the LNG and arms sales. We're probably heading into a recession, too, but it's not irrelevant that the dollar is strong while some other currencies are sliding.

China simply because they are free to push their belt and road initiative while everyone else is occupied with Ukraine, energy woes and recession. I wouldn't necessarily expect China to move on Taiwan, but I do expect them to double down on the South China Seas. Why? Vast natural gas reserves. Which doesn't mean China was behind the sabotage (although they could be), just that they will take advantage.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Can't wait for this thread to die off...keeps picking up in my peripheral as Nordstrom.

 

[BubsFinn]

The simplest answer is most likely the correct one. Who has been causing the most mischief in the last year - Russia. So what you are implying now is Poland, US or Ukraine did this - with might I say no evidence.

However there are now multiple reports of a Russian war ships in the area by europeans. Why would Russia do it - I gave one plausible reason, they are concerned about the declining natural gas prices and tried to cause the prices to go up. I also think Putin as leader is becoming more unstable.

So lets not do some long diatribe on possibilities. Yes there are possibilities, but the most likely outcome is Russia with the evidence also supporting this.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/politics/nord-stream-pipeline-leak-russian-navy-ships/index.html

The gas line originates in Russia. They can shut it off anytime they want. What would their motivation be to blow up it up? None.
What would the motivation be for the US? Well, making Germany and the rest of Europe dependant on us for energy, advancing Biden's Green Agenda, stoking the flames of war with Russia, and elevating the dollar against the Euro and the Pound. Not to mention we can probably sell a few extra billion in weapons to various European countries.

 

[hwk23]

If Russia did this Biden should send a thank you note. An agreement between Russia and Germany was a decent possibilty, if not likely. Germans aren't that convinced of this war, per polls I've seen. An energy crisis would certainly cause politcal turmoil, and might be enought to turn the tide. If Germay capitualted the EU would probably follow, not the UK. The Biden admin can't afford an ending like that politically, not after the b's spent. It might have been a Nato joint effort.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Not the only one, but certainly a prime suspect.

But America is a pretty big thing. What part of America?

The Pentagon?

The CIA?

Some corporation or private consortium?

If either the Pentagon or the CIA, would that be with Presidential approval? A rogue operation?

Charlie Wilson's War, anybody?

Because of the potential for escalation, this almost certainly had Biden’s sign off. This could potentially start a direct war with Russia.

 

[globalhawk]

Because of the potential for escalation, this almost certainly had Biden’s sign off. This could potentially start a direct war with Russia.

Where are you getting this news?

You are convinced that Biden signed off on sabotaging the pipelines? Any proof?

You have completely made up a story without ANY evidence. This is sad.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

Where are you getting this news?

You are convinced that Biden signed off on sabotaging the pipelines? Any proof?

You have completely made up a story without ANY evidence. This is sad.

Dude this is not a newspaper.

Do YOU believe that an agency within the US government would attack a critical piece of Russian energy infrastructure, which has the potential to start a war, and not get that signed off on by the President?

I’m not asking what you read in the Asia Times, I’m asking for your opinion.

 

[globalhawk]

Dude this is not a newspaper.

Do YOU believe that an agency within the US government would attack a critical piece of Russian energy infrastructure, which has the potential to start a war, and not get that signed off on by the President?

I’m not asking what you read in the Asia Times, I’m asking for your opinion.

I am asking why you have already come to that conclusion? Asia Times was a different opinion to your assumptions that the US did it without any proof. Dumb phuq

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

I am asking why you have already come to that conclusion? Asia Times was a different opinion to your assumptions that the US did it without any proof. Dumb phuq

You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe a US Agency would do this without Presidential approval?

 

[globalhawk]

You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe a US Agency would do this without Presidential approval?

WTF. Both of us have no clue.
Are you 100% positive that the USA is responsible for this?

 

[BelemNole]

You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe a US Agency would do this without Presidential approval?

No. The people that seem to believe this theory are the same ones that thought the vaccine was bad for you. It’s not a coincidence.

 

[Big Hawk D-Port]

No. The people that seem to believe this theory are the same ones that thought the vaccine was bad for you. It’s not a coincidence.

I’m not sure why it is hard to believe Biden would sign off on such an operation when he publicly said, on camera, that he would “put an end to Nord Stream 2” if Russia invaded Ukraine, which of course they did.

 

[bunsen82]

The gas line originates in Russia. They can shut it off anytime they want. What would their motivation be to blow up it up? None.
What would the motivation be for the US? Well, making Germany and the rest of Europe dependant on us for energy, advancing Biden's Green Agenda, stoking the flames of war with Russia, and elevating the dollar against the Euro and the Pound. Not to mention we can probably sell a few extra billion in weapons to various European countries.

Do you think Putin is rational or not? If not that is more than a valid enough answer.

 

[bunsen82]

So they blew it up because they can fix it?
That’s an unconvincing motive.


He had already done that by turning it off.
Blowing it up doesn’t improve Russia’s position, because it removes their energy leverage. They can’t offer what they can’t supply.
That’s not a logical motive.



It’s the Baltic, it has Russian and NATO warships in it.

“A Danish official said to CNN that Russian ships regularly operate in the region.”

which warship was noted as being in the area ?? did you see a Nato warship near there, I am still waiting on your evidence a country other than Russia did this.

 

[Rifler]

Russia would have the least to gain from doing this,.. Ukraine probably the most.

 

[hwk23]

No. The people that seem to believe this theory are the same ones that thought the vaccine was bad for you. It’s not a coincidence.

What theory? The theory Russia didn’t blowup their own pipeline that cost $11b, took years to build and they have a valve to turn off?

 

[seminole97]

which warship was noted as being in the area ??

It’s the Baltic.
Warships of at least a half dozen nations transit ‘near there’ all the damn time.

did you see a Nato warship near there,

Unless NATO had all their boats in port the last month, yes, you’re going to find them having been ‘near there’ as well.
This isn’t a smoking gun.

I am still waiting on your evidence a country other than Russia did this.

I stated at the outset I expect no real evidence to emerge, and no legal or political culpability will be determined. The location makes obfuscation too simple.

Don’t you remember when the Vault7 US hacking tools got released and we saw all the documentation for how the CIA works to attribute their activities to others? I’m sure that thinking applies to all nation states, and not just in the realm of cyber warfare.

I think we can readily discuss motives, and examine costs/benefits this act confers, as well as the doors it closes.

I haven’t seen a good rationale for the Russians to demolish their own infrastructure to forcibly subtract their leverage and preclude them from making a deal to end the war on terms more favorable to them.
It’s hard for me to think who this act is worse for than Russia, yet people want to pin it, without any evidence, on Russia.
It just doesn’t make sense.

 

[h-hawk]

"The NATO military alliance warned Thursday it would retaliate for any attacks on the critical infrastructure of its 30 member countries and joined other Western officials in citing sabotage as the likely cause of damage to two natural gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea.

The warning came as the Swedish coast guard confirmed a fourth leak on the pipelines off southern Sweden, which is in the process of joining NATO. The first leaks in the pipelines that extend from Russia to Germany were reported on Tuesday, prompting energy companies and European governments to beef up security."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nord-stream-pipeline-baltic-sea-1.6600084

 

[bunsen82]

It’s the Baltic.
Warships of at least a half dozen nations transit ‘near there’ all the damn time.


Unless NATO had all their boats in port the last month, yes, you’re going to find them having been ‘near there’ as well.
This isn’t a smoking gun.


I stated at the outset I expect no real evidence to emerge, and no legal or political culpability will be determined. The location makes obfuscation too simple.

Don’t you remember when the Vault7 US hacking tools got released and we saw all the documentation for how the CIA works to attribute their activities to others? I’m sure that thinking applies to all nation states, and not just in the realm of cyber warfare.

I think we can readily discuss motives, and examine costs/benefits this act confers, as well as the doors it closes.

I haven’t seen a good rationale for the Russians to demolish their own infrastructure to forcibly subtract their leverage and preclude them from making a deal to end the war on terms more favorable to them.
It’s hard for me to think who this act is worse for than Russia, yet people want to pin it, without any evidence, on Russia.
It just doesn’t make sense.

It creates force majeure for Gazprom, It creates an escalation against countries supporting Ukraine.

Shock and Awe: Who Attacked the Nord Stream Pipelines?

If the perpetrator was Russia, the signaling value toward the West—which would certainly know Russia is behind the explosions—may be a threat to the rest of the marine energy infrastructure.

carnegieendowment.org

The most likely culprit is still Russia. However, as the article states soon enough we will likely have more concrete information on whodunit.

It is amazing how you can complete discount the presence of Russian ships in the specific location (multiple sources), while at the same time trying to create support of U.N warships in the exact same location, with no supporting documentation of such. That takes real skill (or stupidity).

As to rationality or lack of it on Putin side, he militarily tries to occupy territory, then does sham election, then threatens Nukes if Ukraine tries to retake. Wow brilliant. You will destroy what you claim is your own people. This is the master strategist you keep eluding to that you claim is making decisions that are fully rational. He has destroyed his economy, he is killing his own people, he is setting up himself to be overthrown or be assissinated. No offense he is making poor and irrational descisions.

 

[BubsFinn]

Do you think Putin is rational or not? If not that is more than a valid enough answer.

I don’t think he’s borderline senile, if that’s your question. Rational is subjective.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

It creates force majeure for Gazprom, It creates an escalation against countries supporting Ukraine.

Shock and Awe: Who Attacked the Nord Stream Pipelines?

If the perpetrator was Russia, the signaling value toward the West—which would certainly know Russia is behind the explosions—may be a threat to the rest of the marine energy infrastructure.

carnegieendowment.org

The most likely culprit is still Russia. However, as the article states soon enough we will likely have more concrete information on whodunit.

It is amazing how you can complete discount the presence of Russian ships in the specific location (multiple sources), while at the same time trying to create support of U.N warships in the exact same location, with no supporting documentation of such. That takes real skill (or stupidity).

As to rationality or lack of it on Putin side, he militarily tries to occupy territory, then does sham election, then threatens Nukes if Ukraine tries to retake. Wow brilliant. You will destroy what you claim is your own people. This is the master strategist you keep eluding to that you claim is making decisions that are fully rational. He has destroyed his economy, he is killing his own people, he is setting up himself to be overthrown or be assissinated. No offense he is making poor and irrational descisions.

As far as ships in the area...

It was probably a submarine so I'm not sure surface ship sightings are all that relevant.


Found this article interesting...

Russia's Growing Secret Submarine Fleet Key to Moscow's Undersea Future - USNI News

Tensions between Washington and Moscow are rising with a marked increase in competition in the undersea domain, as Russia continues to invest in a fleet of specialized submarines. Russia is the only country with a fleet of special mission subs for seabed warfare and espionage and is expanding...

news.usni.org

 

[ATLNole1]

Interesting article out today from Seymour Hersh claiming it was a US operation. No clue if any of this is true but it will get interesting if it is.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

 

[CoachJaxKnows]

I’m not sure why it is hard to believe Biden would sign off on such an operation when he publicly said, on camera, that he would “put an end to Nord Stream 2” if Russia invaded Ukraine, which of course they did.

Those who think anyone but the US did it are willfully ignorant or just not smart. I'm guessing the latter.

 

[lucas80]

Interesting article out today from Seymour Hersh claiming it was a US operation. No clue if any of this is true but it will get interesting if it is.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

I'd be checking Hersh's financials for a big payment in the last few weeks.

 

[lucas80]

As far as ships in the area...

It was probably a submarine so I'm not sure surface ship sightings are all that relevant.


Found this article interesting...

Russia's Growing Secret Submarine Fleet Key to Moscow's Undersea Future - USNI News

Tensions between Washington and Moscow are rising with a marked increase in competition in the undersea domain, as Russia continues to invest in a fleet of specialized submarines. Russia is the only country with a fleet of special mission subs for seabed warfare and espionage and is expanding...

news.usni.org

Sweden in particular has been vocal about Russian incursions via mini subs, and seabed crawling subs for a few years.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

Interesting article out today from Seymour Hersh claiming it was a US operation. No clue if any of this is true but it will get interesting if it is.

https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

No source.

That which is asserted without evidence can just as simply be dismissed without evidence. Non starter.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

I'd be checking Hersh's financials for a big payment in the last few weeks.

Payment in Rubles?

 

[hwk23]

Nuland in January: “If Russia Invades Ukraine, Nord Stream 2 Will Not Move Forward”

Victoria Nuland in January: If Russia invades Ukraine, one way or another, Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.

youtube.com

 

[bunsen82]

I am open minded and am leaning more to the US did this, new info can change opinions, however this article is not a dagger. It appears to be a single sourced article - essentially with any article at a major publisher you need a second source to confirm the information. I can understand the difficulty in getting a second source, however you also have to admit someone could in theory provide false information for political or financial gain - I’m not saying that was done here, however this article isn’t published is any major publication for a reason. The article is likely right, but you also have to admit there is a possibility that this is disinformation if there was a not a second source.

 

[lucas80]

I am open minded and am leaning more to the US did this, new info can change opinions, however this article is not a dagger. It appears to be a single sourced article - essentially with any article at a major publisher you need a second source to confirm the information. I can understand the difficulty in getting a second source, however you also have to admit someone could in theory provide false information for political or financial gain - I’m not saying that was done here, however this article isn’t published is any major publication for a reason. The article is likely right, but you also have to admit there is a possibility that this is disinformation if there was a not a second source.

The "article", has one, anonymous source. It's BS.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

No source.

That which is asserted without evidence can just as simply be dismissed without evidence. Non starter.

Lack of an identified source doesn't make something wrong.

Hersh's account is entirely plausible and has some elements that can be verified. That doesn't guarantee that he's right but certainly lends credence to his account.

Hersh has a pretty good reputation. That also lends credence to this account.

Personally, I think Hersh is probably right. When this first happened I suggested severasl reasons why the most obvious suspects would be the US and Norway. Sure, just because they are the most obvious suspects doesn't mean they did it. But things that make good sense do have better odds of being true.