4 ms·

The most plain explanation is that this was simply a warning message from Russia. These two pipelines have no longer any value to them, nor to EU. However, wha

The most plain explanation is that this was simply a warning message from Russia. These two pipelines have no longer any value to them, nor to EU. However, what does have value are the numerous pipelines from Norway and other countries to EU. And this is where the real treat is. Russia has now shown it is willing to blow up infrastructure outside Ukraine. Russia is known to have carefully mapped out the gas pipelines from Norway to UK. Remember how Russian oligark luxury ships carefully navigated close to gas pipelines, while the cover was that the oligark was attending Molde jazzfestival? Similar activity observed by Russian fishing ships.

bamboozled 4y ago
Except now they’ve told everyone they’re coming, which would be stupid. If they were considering blowing up pipelines they wouldn’t tell anyone and ruin the element of surprise.
- ancorevard 4y ago
  There is no element of surprise. A real threat is demonstrating your capability and willingness to take action, no use of words no surprise (if surprise then no threat). This is a warning to Norway and rest of Europe.
- qqqwerty 4y ago
  The threat is more valuable than the the actual action. Russia's nuclear threats can only accomplish so much. They have so far kept NATO from getting directly involved but clearly have not worked to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine or moderated sanctions. And with the EU getting closer to removing its dependence on Russian gas, the energy angle is quickly vanishing. This could be Russias way of subtly signaling that it can still play that card. An explicit verbal threat might not be taken seriously. But a demonstration of how easy it is to sabotage a pipeline has certainly gotten folks attention.
  - bamboozled 4y ago
    So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that? Maybe you think the symbolism is important, but on the other hand, people might also just think it looks childish...
    - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
      > So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that? The intelligence knows for sure. But imagine the effect such action has if it happened that the pictures of gas bubbling up the Baltic sea were shown on TV in every news program for a week.
    - qqqwerty 4y ago
      The entire invasion of Ukraine looks childish from where I sit. That hasn't stopped them. > Maybe you think the symbolism is important It is important in that verbal threats do not carry much weight when so many other threats have already been wagered. For example Putin has already threatened to attack Finland if the join NATO. Sometimes you need a little more than words to get your message across.
advisedwang 4y ago
Russia could send a warning message by shutting off the gas. What is the need to blow it up and reduce future choices?
- rad_gruchalski 4y ago
  Obvious answer would be that they cannot switch off Norwegian gas but can definitely blow up a Norwegian pipeline (or Polish, or British).
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Russia always wants plausible deniability. That's why they used lies about repairs as a front in order to shut off gas previously.
mjfl 4y ago
The economics of the warning don't make sense. Why destroy billions of dollars, 10 years of construction, and hundreds of miles of Russian investment for a warning? That's stupid, and Putin isn't stupid, at all. Dogshit take.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Putin isn't stupid, and yet he invaded Ukraine? Yes he is a fairly smart man but he's capable of recklessness and miscalculation. Also, there's two assumptions here. First that they've destroyed the whole project. What's your source on the repair costs in order to justify that position? Another assumption you've made is that NS2 isn't a sunk cost for Russia. That's an unjustified assumption given the recent consequences of Russia's energy war on Europe.
  - mjfl 4y ago
    Correct, he isn't stupid and he invaded Ukraine and you should be more weary about it. > Also, there's two assumptions here. First that they've destroyed the whole project. What's your source on the repair costs in order to justify that position? If you search around this thread, the pipeline has an internal coating that cannot be exposed to water and no valve system to isolate and replace parts of the pipe for repairs. I'm just going off that information. But even if it can be repaired it's still very costly, and stupid to do potentially massive damage to your own infrastructure for an unspecified/unspoken 'warning' that people may not even pick up on. I'm certainly not picking up on it. That's a very inefficient messaging system. > Another assumption you've made is that NS2 isn't a sunk cost for Russia. That's an unjustified assumption given the recent consequences of Russia's energy war on Europe. It wasn't a sunk cost. It was a nearly operational pipeline that would have delivered extremely cheap natural gas to germany's many factories, way cheaper than other source. Europe is desperate for energy and will be desperate for energy after the war. This is why it's such a great bargaining chip, and why there's a great incentive for the US to destroy it, so they can take away that bargaining chip.
- postingawayonhn 4y ago
  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.

bamboozled 4y ago

Except now they’ve told everyone they’re coming, which would be stupid. If they were considering blowing up pipelines they wouldn’t tell anyone and ruin the element of surprise.

ancorevard 4y ago
There is no element of surprise. A real threat is demonstrating your capability and willingness to take action, no use of words no surprise (if surprise then no threat). This is a warning to Norway and rest of Europe.
qqqwerty 4y ago
The threat is more valuable than the the actual action. Russia's nuclear threats can only accomplish so much. They have so far kept NATO from getting directly involved but clearly have not worked to keep NATO weapons out of Ukraine or moderated sanctions. And with the EU getting closer to removing its dependence on Russian gas, the energy angle is quickly vanishing. This could be Russias way of subtly signaling that it can still play that card. An explicit verbal threat might not be taken seriously. But a demonstration of how easy it is to sabotage a pipeline has certainly gotten folks attention.
- bamboozled 4y ago
  So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that? Maybe you think the symbolism is important, but on the other hand, people might also just think it looks childish...
  - rad_gruchalski 4y ago
    > So you think they had to demonstrate they know how to blow up a pipe? Like Western intelligence officials didn't know that? The intelligence knows for sure. But imagine the effect such action has if it happened that the pictures of gas bubbling up the Baltic sea were shown on TV in every news program for a week.
  - qqqwerty 4y ago
    The entire invasion of Ukraine looks childish from where I sit. That hasn't stopped them. > Maybe you think the symbolism is important It is important in that verbal threats do not carry much weight when so many other threats have already been wagered. For example Putin has already threatened to attack Finland if the join NATO. Sometimes you need a little more than words to get your message across.

advisedwang 4y ago

Russia could send a warning message by shutting off the gas. What is the need to blow it up and reduce future choices?

rad_gruchalski 4y ago
Obvious answer would be that they cannot switch off Norwegian gas but can definitely blow up a Norwegian pipeline (or Polish, or British).
hackerlight 4y ago
Russia always wants plausible deniability. That's why they used lies about repairs as a front in order to shut off gas previously.

mjfl 4y ago

The economics of the warning don't make sense. Why destroy billions of dollars, 10 years of construction, and hundreds of miles of Russian investment for a warning? That's stupid, and Putin isn't stupid, at all. Dogshit take.

hackerlight 4y ago
Putin isn't stupid, and yet he invaded Ukraine? Yes he is a fairly smart man but he's capable of recklessness and miscalculation. Also, there's two assumptions here. First that they've destroyed the whole project. What's your source on the repair costs in order to justify that position? Another assumption you've made is that NS2 isn't a sunk cost for Russia. That's an unjustified assumption given the recent consequences of Russia's energy war on Europe.
- mjfl 4y ago
  Correct, he isn't stupid and he invaded Ukraine and you should be more weary about it. > Also, there's two assumptions here. First that they've destroyed the whole project. What's your source on the repair costs in order to justify that position? If you search around this thread, the pipeline has an internal coating that cannot be exposed to water and no valve system to isolate and replace parts of the pipe for repairs. I'm just going off that information. But even if it can be repaired it's still very costly, and stupid to do potentially massive damage to your own infrastructure for an unspecified/unspoken 'warning' that people may not even pick up on. I'm certainly not picking up on it. That's a very inefficient messaging system. > Another assumption you've made is that NS2 isn't a sunk cost for Russia. That's an unjustified assumption given the recent consequences of Russia's energy war on Europe. It wasn't a sunk cost. It was a nearly operational pipeline that would have delivered extremely cheap natural gas to germany's many factories, way cheaper than other source. Europe is desperate for energy and will be desperate for energy after the war. This is why it's such a great bargaining chip, and why there's a great incentive for the US to destroy it, so they can take away that bargaining chip.
postingawayonhn 4y ago
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.