28 ms·

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'

• netsharc 4y ago
  Maybe the Russian military has some factions, and a faction is thinking surrender. Destroying the pipelines would advantage the faction against surrender, because then the surrenderists would be weaker, since they have less to offer to the EU. Which faction Putin would belong to is a different area of speculation. Or it's really Putin's way of saying "I'm not bluffing, in fact, here's how serious I am, see these pipes for that possible future gas sale?". If he really is destroying something that could make him money in the future, maybe he's really in an "If I can't win then let me flip the board" mood. Which I'd extrapolate to him being in a "Get the nukes warmed up" mood. I wonder what discussion inside the intelligence community is like currently. It'd be amazing. Maybe watch what the senators connected to the intelligence committee are buying/selling.
  • percevalve 4y ago
    Reading that the Norway-Poland pipeline just happened to open today... Sounds like a loud a clear message to me, along the lines of "Gas pipeline seems to be very fragile around here, let's just hope nothing happens to yours". If you add factions into the mix, I would say that this might be what makes the most sense. https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-poland-gas-pipeline-opens-in-key-move-to-cut-dependency-on-russia https://www.euronews.com/2022/09/27/baltic-pipe-norway-polan...
    • PartyOperator 4y ago
      There's also the fact that it just shakes things up a bit. Russia isn't benefiting from the pipeline now. Leaving it intact leaves long-term opportunities and risks that strategic actors with time on their side can turn against Russia (or against Putin in particular). Blowing a hole in the pipeline creates confusion, disruption and opportunities today. For what? Unclear, but Putin seems to thrive on short-term crises.
      • thenthenthen 4y ago
        I think all parties involved could potentially benefit from the confusion surrounding this pipeline.
    • kazen44 4y ago
      destroying something as vital as the poland-norway pipeline or other norwegian gas infrastructure could be seen as a trigger for article 5. Mind you, this is something russian claims it wants (the war against the west and all that), but actually triggering it or something like it which allows to poor even more weapons into ukraine will result in an even weaker russia.
• NeverFade 4y ago
  > The next question is, who did it? The Russians. > It doesn't seem like something in Russia's interest, they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational. Once their invasion faltered, and with the recent escalation, they had no hope of that happening. The current Russian regime will never be able to repair relations with the west to the extent that will allow the Nordstream pipelines to resume operations. You don't come back from nuclear threats and committing massive massacres on this scale. The next regime might be able to repair relations, but the current regime doesn't care about that: they'll be dead or imprisoned for life before any new regime can take over. This is the Russian regime's way of abandoning the project while causing the worst possible damage to the hated Europeans who are supporting Ukraine against their illegal, atrocious invasion. > That's an intriguing mystery. Nope. Clearly the Russians.
  • vachina 4y ago
    • greedo 4y ago
  • jpfr 4y ago
    That doesn't make any sense. If the Russians wanted to stop the gas supply, they could just stop supplying gas. And they had already stopped. Destroying the infrastructure doesn't give Russia an additional capability (degree of freedom). It removes the degree of freedom to restart supplying gas. And thus removes this option for Russia to use as a bargaining chip in negotiations. I would say this is either the US, Ukraine or a EU state. To remove the threat that the EU later in the winter falters in negotations due to public pressure to turn the heat back on (literally). The US has the additional incentive that they want to become the only gas provider to the EU via LNG terminals. That gives them an edge over the EU both economically and politically. The Ukraine has the additional incentive that the remaining pipelines from Russia to the EU run through Ukraine. Removing the alternative options keeps the EU allied through dependence.
• Kukumber 4y ago
  Could be the US since they are in discussions to (force) sell their gas to EU Source since i made some people angry: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/the-us-is-now-sending-the-bulk-of-its-export-gas-to-europe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-07/the-us-is...
• henearkr 4y ago
  EU and the USA have no interest to provoke methane leaks, as it is a very highly greenhouse effect gas. Putin, on the other hand, does not care.
  • garaetjjte 4y ago
    In current situation greenhouse effect is probably at the bottom of everybody priority list.
    • henearkr 4y ago
      Not at all. EU has been adamant that this was not the good time to go all-coal for example. They could have done just that but no, the whole population and the politics are against (except in a few illiberal "democracies"). Even in the US there is a lot of work done recently to patch the methane leaks in gas fields, for example, which have been spotted as big emitters (by negligence or lack of enforcement).
      • vachina 4y ago
        > in the US there is a lot of work done recently to patch the methane leaks in gas fields This sounds like a business sustainability decision rather than out of concern for the environment.
        • henearkr 4y ago
          No, the business side was Trump's side. "Sustainability" (but not in the planet-preserving / extinction-event-avoiding meaning) of fossil fuel over the next century is not at all a problem, if we wished so.
    • gpderetta 4y ago
      Don't worry. The incoming nuclear winter will neatly offset the greenhouse warming. /s but not really...
  • Kukumber 4y ago
• belorn 4y ago
  Who has something to loose, something to gain, and the ability to do a covert military operation in Swedish/Danish water. Russia did built it but they weren't gaining anything from having a non-operational pipeline. Just as much gas is being sold now as it was yesterday, and with all the investment and political effort going into the European energy grid right now, it is very unlikely that those pipelines will ever be operational again. No country in EU will ever want to become dependent on Russia again after this winter. Who might gain from a perceived attack? Is there a country that is known to spin this kind of thing for political gain? And last, who has a history of having submarines in this region and a reputation for repeatably ignoring and intruding into Swedish and Danish territorial waters?
  • petre 4y ago
    > No country in EU will ever want to become dependent on Russia again after this winter. Hungary and possibly Austria. Hungary even signed a deal with Rosatom to extend their Pecs nuclear powerplant. https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-approves-construction-of-russian-built-nuclear-reactors/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/hungary-approves-constructio...
    • belorn 4y ago
      Nuclear fuel for those plants is generally produced in Russia, through Swedish manufacturer acquired in the previous decade the patents/designs to produces fuel rods that fit those plants. Sure, it will still be hard to separated Rosatom from those power plants but it not impossible.
• formerly_proven 4y ago
  > 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 build it after all. NS2 never entering service was settled for good over 200 days ago. NS1 has been shut down by Russia, but it was at best dubious before this whether it would ever be used operationally again.
  • origin_path 4y ago
    It wasn't "settled for good", that's silly, it was still there pressurized and ready to go. Germany recently saw protests by people who wanted to open it, and some politicians saying it needed to be opened, and it is safe to assume that if things got really bad in Germany this winter they would have opened it. Clearly, whoever has attacked these pipelines knew perfectly well that the story about Russia being unwilling to sell gas was nonsense, and also knew perfectly well that European sanctions would collapse in the face of rotating blackouts. Apparently someone very powerful cares more about fucking Russia than fucking Europeans.
    • LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
      The last remains of Baltops 2022 passed by there about just short of a week ago. https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/schleswig-holstein/fehmarn/grosser-flottenverband-der-us-navy-passiert-fehmarnbelt-91809308.html https://www.kreiszeitung.de/lokales/schleswig-holstein/fehma...
    • keewee7 4y ago
      >Germany recently saw protests by people who wanted to open it, and some politicians saying it needed to be opened The protests were made up of AfD supporters and Russian/Serbian immigrants, and the the only politicians saying it needs to be opened are from the AfD. They are not representative of German public and political sentiments.
      • nix23 4y ago
        >the only politicians saying it needs to be opened are from the AfD. Ah yeah Wagenknecht is part of the AfD now?
• aredox 4y ago
  It is in Russia's interest: this is their last warning before the North Sea pipelines blow up too.
  • 0x457 4y ago
    Remove its only leverage is in Russia's interest? Until now, there was a possibility that EU get tired and get bend over. Now that possibility is gone.
    • aredox 4y ago
      There are other pipelines - and boats. Norway is in high alert right now. Can you guess why? https://mobile.twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1574798147783622659 https://mobile.twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/157479814778362...
    • migro23 4y ago
      That possibility is long gone. Damaging the Nord Stream pipeline however gives Putin reason to continue to not supply gas (rather than flat out breaking existing contracts) hence maximising the possibility for civil disruption in Europe over the Winter. The less gas there is in Europe the more chance of this occurring. No one knows for sure at this point but all these comments on this thread that there isn't reason or motive for Russia to do this is complete nonsense.
      • 0x457 4y ago
        87.7% of EU gas storage is filled[1]. Which is pretty close to how it is usually every winter. Germany is at 91%. Russia wasn't supplying gas via Nord Stream 1, claiming it needs maintenance and sanctions preventing this maintenance. Which is well...true[2]? Six turbines were stuck in Canada due to sanctions. There are many ways to not supply gas to Germany and not break the contract that does not involve damaging nearly 20 billion dollar infrastructure (NS1 + NS2). There a reasons and motives to do so, buy IMO none of them outweigh the damage. > That possibility is long gone. No, it's not. You contradict yourself in the very next sentence. [1]: https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/EUROPE-GAS/zdvxozxzopx/ https://graphics.reuters.com/UKRAINE-CRISIS/EUROPE-GAS/zdvxo... [2]: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says-no-nord-stream-1-turbines-currently-canada-2022-08-25/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gazprom-says...
• jskrablin 4y ago
  Whoever did it - any further debate along "let's make friends again with Putin and go back to the cheap Russian gas as it once was" lines is now settled. That alone will have interesting consequences across EU.
  • migro23 4y ago
    That debate was long dead at least while Putin remained in power
    • scottLobster 4y ago
      Unless his strategy of energy starvation actually worked over the winter
    • plutonorm 4y ago
      Don't underestimate the power of desperation. If europe was literally freezing to death they would buy russian gas.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• yznovyak 4y ago
  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 somehow gets a successor, he (or she) would stop the war, blame everything on Putin, beg for lifting of sanction and resuming the trade. Since Europe needs gas they'll gladly agree to this. But if there is no gas, then the potential successor would have much less of a value to offer. Basically with gas on the table the upside is high enough to warrant an attempt of an extremely risky coup, but without the gas it's a much less interesting proposition. An alternative POV is that somebody (USA?) does not trust Europe/Germany/... to not "relapse" to the "gas needle" when the things get dire.
  • jahnu 4y ago
    How long would it take to repair the pipelines? A few months? Feels like that would scupper this theory.
    • cm2187 4y ago
      As long as it takes longer than the end of the winter
  • ed_balls 4y ago
    There is Yamal, Brotherhood and Turk Stream - more than enough capacity. I don't think anyone is willing to buy more than 10% from Russian, ever. It's too risky. China is keeping it under 15%.
  • mytailorisrich 4y ago
    • monkeydreams 4y ago
      I don't know that Ukraine has the capability to do this. The number of countries capable of this act is quite small.
• Symmetry 4y ago
  The problem is that the technical resources required to pull something like this off don't seem to be all that high. You need a ton or so of explosives which is the hard part, a delayed fuse, a water proof container, a camera and light that work underwater, and some winches to deploy the camera and then the bomb. It wouldn't surprise me if almost every nation in Europe could pull this off if they put their minds to it, and a wide variety of sub-national groups as well.
  • tpmx 4y ago
    What kind of sub-national groups in relevant countries do you have in mind? Otherwise: Agreed.
    • davidw 4y ago
      The Libyans from Back to the Future?
    • Symmetry 4y ago
      There are lots of options, mostly intelligence agencies of various sorts taking matters into their own hands. Maybe a European or American group which doesn't want Europe bought off or a Russia group which wants total victory rather than a peaceful compromise. One could imagine an ecoterrorist group wanting to do this in the confusion of the war but the timing so soon after Russia's mobilization makes it look like the explosions are related so probably not that.
    • lovemenot 4y ago
      GreenWar: a hypothetical sibling of GreenPeace. Of course I don't actually believe this. However, considering the war and today's sabotage purely from a global warming perspective, it could be net positive in the long run. Accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels.
      • girvo 4y ago
        I wonder if the sheer amount of methane dumped into the atmosphere from the damaged pipelines would be an acceptable cost for the hypothetical GreenWar? I couldn't see it, myself. The pipes weren't empty, and thats a lot of quite bad greenhouse gas now making things worse.
• smsm42 4y ago
  > they've been wanting to get that pipeline approved and operational Not recently. Recently, they pulled out a string of excuses to send less and less gas over (turbine bing repaired, sanctions, etc.) to show Europe their leverage. They don't feel any lack of money currently, and they know with current hydrocarbon prices, they have options to sell, even if at discount, and no money shortages currently. So they're betting on European population being weak and European energy infrastructure being dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, and thus citizens pushing the politicians to make nice with Russia. The fact that they invested a lot of money in it means nothing. They have money. They have oil and gas that they can sell for money. What they need is for the West not to send so much weapons and ammunition to Ukraine that Russian army, numerous but weak and disorganized, will be completely crushed and expelled from Ukraine. Cutting off the flow directly would expose them to contractual sanctions, which can be leveraged against assets Russia still has in the West. But cutting off the flow by "mysterious explosion" reaches the same goal while providing Russians with tiny veiled plausible deniability. That's how they always operate. I'm sure in 5 years or so they'd admit it openly. Just as they admitted that "insurgents" in East Ukraine and Crimea were actually Russian military and intelligence officers, or Putin's private military "Wagner Group" exists, was created by a close Putin ally - which they were denying for years - and is operating in Ukraine.
  • thiagoharry 4y ago
    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.
    • arisAlexis 4y ago
      The only leverage left to Russia is nukes.
    • smsm42 4y ago
      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.
• xtian 4y ago
  > The next question is, who did it? A Polish member of the European Parliament has thanked the US: https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915 https://twitter.com/radeksikorski/status/1574800653724966915
  • protomyth 4y ago
    I somehow think the USA would have done it with a bit less big explosion solution.
    • xtian 4y ago
      Why’s that?
      • bewaretheirs 4y ago
        Methane is a significant greenhouse gas and I just don't see an attack that results in a large methane release being approved by the current administration. If they wanted to permanently shut the pipeline they'd do it differently.
        • NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
          >Methane is a significant greenhouse gas and I just don't see an attack that results in a large methane release being approved by the current administration. You have a much higher standards of the current administration than I do. I haven't noticed any significant morality in the office of the POTUS since I've been alive. Carter was the last even halfway decent president we've had. Especially when you are aware that the US military is the single largest consumer of petroleum products on the planet and it gets a bigger budget every single year.
      • klabb3 4y ago
        To make it look like Russians did it, probably. It's Putin's MO.
        • 4y ago
• abathur 4y ago
  IDK about the details underlying the argument (whether the contract is actually structured this way, etc.), but https://mobile.twitter.com/nierobmitak/status/1574749036912910337 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).
  • RationPhantoms 4y ago
    Isn't that also why billionaires close to Russia have been "dying"? Their assets would be property of the state ergo Putin's coffers.
    • foverzar 4y ago
      > Their assets would be property of the state Their assets would be property of their inheritors, just as everywhere else.
  • OrvalWintermute 4y ago
    Contracts 101: All contracts have force majeure clauses.
• thiagoharry 4y ago
  The USA is the country that threatened an attack against the gas pipeline. "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the -- the border of Ukraine again, then there will be -- there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2," Biden said during the press conference with Scholz, who did not go as far as Biden, but insisted the U.S. and Germany remain "absolutely united." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor-urge-united-front-amid/story?id=82712888 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor...
  • t0mas88 4y ago
    In the context of that day it meant Germany not approving Nord Stream 2, which is what happened. He didn't mean blowing it up.
    • foverzar 4y ago
      He meant what he had said and that is that the US will prevent the pipeline from working properly. We have no information to reason about how it was meant to be achieved then or how far would one go in case of some contingency. We can infer though that the circumstances had changed (Russian mobilization and referendums) and that the US ends up profiting the most now that the NS1/2 can't be turned back on.
  • woodruffw 4y ago
    It's a serious stretch to read this as threatening an attack on the pipeline itself. Not only is it from over 6 months ago, but it doesn't make any sense: NS2 is controlled by the Germans themselves, and there's no strategic value in blowing it up rather than just turning it off (or on). The more sensible interpretation is that Biden was threatening to fully support Germany's plans to become energy independent. And that's, so far, what we've seen the US commit to.
    • DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      > The more sensible interpretation is that Biden was threatening to fully support Germany's plans to become energy independent. I don't think that Biden was threatening to blow up the pipeline, but what you've given is a somewhat sugar-coated version of the American approach towards Germany and Nord Stream 2. Long before the Russian invasion of the Ukraine, the US began sanctioning German companies involved in NS2. The American approach to NS2 has been rather blunt, given that Germany is a close ally that usually toes the line, even to its own detriment. At the time, I read Biden's statement as a promise that the US would sharpen sanctions on German companies involved in the project if the Germans did not willingly exit the project themselves.
• arisAlexis 4y ago
  It's exactly how the Russians would play an excuse to escalate. Russian gas is going nowhere in Europe for decades this is clear. So they lost nothing but now they can blame the west.
• Paradigma11 4y ago
  The H0 is it was Russia. Their competing intelligence agencies love to pull such shit. Maybe as a false flag, false false false flag or any other kind of rationalisation some paranoid mind in the Kremlin came up with. To generate more fear and distrust in the european population? If there was any way to bet on these things, i would love put some money on it. But maybe there really is another involved actor who risked such a stupid move (some radical polish or baltic actors?)
• cronix 4y ago
  Biden did say that if Russia invades Ukraine, "there will be no longer a Nordstream 2" seven months ago. When a reporter asked "how he would do that, since it's under German control," he stated "we will, I promise you, we will be able to do it." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSPfXLPUJHM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSPfXLPUJHM
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• mechanical_bear 4y ago
  No “The” used in Ukraine. It is a sovereign nation, in need of no article.
• UyERifyhDLWOf 4y ago
  The OP link goes to "forsvaret.dk" wich is the Danish military. I am a Dane. I think I may be able to offer a perspective on this that non-Danes will simply miss. While being a regular reader, for posting this I have created a new account that will not be used again. Please excuse me for being a bit verbose, as this is not simple: ONE First, I am not positive if this technically happened inside our territorial waters or just outside, but it seems at least some of it happened inside. Meaning: We didn't defend our own waters properly. The area as of now has been blocked for traffic, and we have sent a minor military vessel there (a fregate) to at least signal that the matter is of some interest. We can not boast of a large navy or a particularly large military at that. TWO The only part of our military that is in some way of significance is... our Divers Corps. We have excellent divers, which are given tasks comparable to those of the more well known US Seals (only more specialized as the Divers Corps is smaller than the Seals Force and not able to span such a large set of roles). Suffice to say that they sould be considered competent in all things on and below water. These competent people will most likely be capable of investigating the technical side of this matter fully and rather quickly if they are allowed to, which it does not seem like. THREE In stead it seems like our intelligence agencies (in cooperation with our so-called "allies") will be tasked with that job. We all know by now how these information exchanges work (thanks, Snowden) and if there is even a remote possibility that one of these "allies" have been involved, we should not expect that to surface from any investigation. FOUR Our intelligence agencies... (we have two: A Police Intelligence Agency and a Defence Intelligence Agency) are more or less at war. The civilian agency (Police) has literally arrested the head of the military intelligence agency on charges somewhat similar to "high treason" for what amounts to be evidence falling totally apart (or so it seems). FIVE Also, we are facing a general election. Very soon. The government is going to fall in less than two weeks - we know this for sure as it has been declared by their support party. Why? SIX Our head of government and the whole administration has tecnically broken the constitution (on a matter entirely unrelated to Gas or Ukraine). SEVEN It seeems there is at lest 50% chance that our current government will not get re-elected EIGHT We operate a multiple-party system, and this election will see at least two new parties of unknown -- possibly big -- impact (as they were formed recently by some voter magnets that broke out from previous parties and have a less than complete policy in place) NINE Our current government is dominated by a party (Social Democrats) which is notoriously "America Friendly". They have sold out critical infrastructure, engaged widely with the likes of Boston Consulting Group, etc. and ..well, let's just say examples are legio. This netted a former Head of State a very well paid job in some Facebook Ethical Committee, and other former ministers have also been rewarded for their support of American interests in similar fashions. TEN So, we have a coastline. A significant harbour (Esbjerg) is right now being refactored in order to be able to receive the largest American Navy vessels with the stated aim of arming Eastern Europe. A pretty large US ship, IIRC, "Endeavour" recently practiced unloading of tanks and other stuff there. [0] ELEVEN The deal has been struck betweeen the government and NATO and/or USA. The population as such was not consulted on the matter, as we have what is known as "representative democracy". It was hasted through in the aftermath of the Ukraine invasion as if it was a necessity for Danmark. TWELVE Our defence minister visited the USA a few weeks ago (Sept 1). In extreme secrecy our government is negotiating a deal with the US that will allow USA to set up permanent military presence ("bases") on our soil. TWELVE (B) This is the same government that will fall in a few weeks, and be replaced by who-knows-what THIRTEEN One possible relevant location of one of these bases has been mentioned to be... the island of Bornholm FOURTEEN This island lies strategically at the entrance to the Baltic Sea. You can not enter or exit the Baltic Sea without passing it. FIFTEEN Russia is not amused. Especially since American forces were preacticing "extended fire capabilities" there in May. Russia claims that it is a violation of an agreement tat the Danish govenment as well as USA does not seem to recognize [1][2] SIXTEEN This island is in the general neighborood of the damaged pipelines. That is, very close. SEVENTEEN Few monts ago a large Naval excercise called BALTOPS22 took place in the general vicinity of said island. The US navy participated [3] eg. "by executing complex multi-vehicle UUV missions with modified U.S. Navy fleet assets." - allegedly in the field of mine detection. EIGHTEEN UUV means "unmanned underwater vehicle". In [3] it is stated that increasing the distance these UUVs can be controlled from was important. NINETEEN Incidentally, a few years ago, in 2015, the Swedish military actually found a (cable-controlled) drone loaded with explosives near a Nord Stream pipeline. The communications cable was "cut off" so it could not detonate.[4] TWENTY (and closing) As stated above signifcant US military interests hinges on support from a Danish government that is about to fall in mere weeks. The current government has been "very cooperative" to US interests (to put it politely), and the future government is unknown. CONCLUDING Feel free to connect these 20 dots as best you can. ---- [0] (in Danish) https://arbejderen.dk/indland/usas-krigsskibe-og-bombefly-indtager-danske-havne-og-luftrum/ https://arbejderen.dk/indland/usas-krigsskibe-og-bombefly-in... [1] https://www.thelocal.dk/20220407/danish-pm-rebuts-russian-ambassador-over-bornholm-comments/ https://www.thelocal.dk/20220407/danish-pm-rebuts-russian-am... [2] https://www.dvidshub.net/news/422733/us-military-makes-history-baltic-sea https://www.dvidshub.net/news/422733/us-military-makes-histo... [3] https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunity-for-research-and-resting-new-technology/ https://seapowermagazine.org/baltops-22-a-perfect-opportunit... [4] https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/explosive-laden-drone-found-near-nord-stream-pipeline https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/explosive-laden-drone-...
• hackerlight 4y ago
  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 distrust. It's an intelligent leveraging of a sunk cost when most don't realize it's a sunk cost or don't understand the concept of sunk costs.
  • foverzar 4y ago
    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.
    • hackerlight 4y ago
      That's literally the sunk cost fallacy.
• everforward 4y ago
  > 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. There may not be a need for ignition; the news articles are saying pressures in Nordstream 1 dropped from 105 bar (1,522.9 PSI) to 7 bar (101.5 PSI). The water pressure at 100m where the pipe is is ~10 bar, so about a 1377.9 PSI difference in pressure. A pipe with 1,377.9 PSI difference pipe that's 1.1m in diameter rupturing seems like it would cause a blast even without igniting. I could also be way off-base. My physics and chemistry classes were a long time ago, and had nothing to do with explosions.