14 ms·

It is in Russia's interest: this is their last warning before the North Sea pipelines blow up too.

by aredox 4y ago

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...
    - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
      The manufacturer of those turbines themselves went to the length of making a statement that the Russian technical rationale offered was false.
gnull 4y ago
Blow up your own pipelines to warn someone else?
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  They were already effectively turned off.
- aredox 4y ago
  Yes... If you blow the enemy's, it is not a warning anymore, it's already an agression.
  - aizen89 4y ago
    - dang 4y ago
      > Are you sure your IQ is over 60? We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
saiya-jin 4y ago
I'd vote for Russia too, not direct evidence obviously but makes more sense than anybody else. Elites who decide see that EU wants and will cut itself off from Russia anyway, just a question of when and its coming soon. So harsh punishment of this pesky EU right before winter starts to feel the consequences of daring to break away from Russian dependence. Russia made tons of money in past months on oil and gas due to elevated prices. Money ain't what they need desperately now, rather massive civil unrest in EU to weaken Ukraine support and punish. Those who decide have stellar-size egos which are getting continuously humiliated by recent development. Don't underestimate pettiness of a ego-maniac person who has tremendous power and thinks about themselves as somebody larger-than-life and on a life mission. Anyway financial consequences of not selling gas anymore won't affect anyhow the folks on top, and clearly russian population is just cannon fodder for them. Its political and military move. Realistically only US and Russia have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously. This all benefits US too in some ways, but if I have to decide between those 2 options, for me personally its a no brainer. Has anybody checked Russian reaction? Sometimes its quite obvious from how they say things / what they don't say whats really happening and how much they actually care. For me its not easy to see this in western media and I don't speak russian to check source directly.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- phpthrowaway99 4y ago
  This makes zero sense to me. What does Russia get by destroying their own pipeline? If they wanted to shutoff gas, thats just a turn of a valve. Russia looses massive leverage by no longer being able to deliver gas, even if they wanted to. Prior to this, if the public got cold enough, they could tell their government "forget Ukraine, we need gas. Go agree to get it or we will vote you out ASAP". Now.... There's no point in settling anything with Russia, since you're not going to get their gas anyway.
  - migro23 4y ago
    People need to stop thinking of 'Russia' (or any other country for that matter) as a single monolith. For example, a possible motive that may be bad for Russia but good for Putin is that maybe he wants to deter any would be assassination attempt coming from within the Kremlin by making it abundantly clear that there will be no going back to business as usual if he was to be eliminated. Blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines is a very good way to achieve that. We as regular citizens have limited info, really we don't know what's going on. But don't assume it definitely isn't Russia because of whatever reason that happens to seem plausible to you.
phpthrowaway99 4y ago
Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on. Now if the pipelines are destroyed, no matter how cold and angry citizens in the EU get, EU leadership has no reason to give in to Russian since that now won't get the gas turned back on. If anything, this points to Ukraine or the US doing it.
- libertine 4y ago
  >Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on. That boat has sailed some time ago - you don't need to destroy something that's guaranteed it won't be used for decades probably, if ever again. No country in the West will do any trade with Russia under Putin. There's simply no turning back when you throw diplomacy and international laws out the window, and hide under nuclear threat. In my point of view this was clearly a message that ANY gas that passes through that sea might have the same faith - even in NATO territory. It wasn't by chance that it happened the same day a new gas pipe was opened between Norway and Poland: 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... Not to mention that if anyone wants to PUSH GAS PRICES UP, this is a great way to spread panic in the markets "oh no!!! that door wont open again!!!". I only see positives to Russia in this event, not a single positive for anyone else.
  - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
    I see huge positives for Ukraine and by proxy the US by removing leverage from Russia.
    - libertine 4y ago
      What leverage?
      - phpthrowaway99 4y ago
sschueller 4y ago
Yet it was the United States president that told a German reporter that NS2 will never go online and the US will see to that. Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?" Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that." abcn.ws/3B5SScx
- r00fus 4y ago
  So? that already happened. It's offline by German decision, requested by the US/Ukraine.

It is in Russia's interest: this is their last warning before the North Sea pipelines blow up too.

by aredox 4y ago

It is in Russia's interest: this is their last warning before the North Sea pipelines blow up too.

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...
  - jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
    The manufacturer of those turbines themselves went to the length of making a statement that the Russian technical rationale offered was false.

gnull 4y ago

Blow up your own pipelines to warn someone else?

bpodgursky 4y ago
They were already effectively turned off.
aredox 4y ago
Yes... If you blow the enemy's, it is not a warning anymore, it's already an agression.
- aizen89 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    > Are you sure your IQ is over 60? We ban accounts that post like this, so please don't, regardless of how wrong another comment is or you feel it is. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.

saiya-jin 4y ago

I'd vote for Russia too, not direct evidence obviously but makes more sense than anybody else. Elites who decide see that EU wants and will cut itself off from Russia anyway, just a question of when and its coming soon. So harsh punishment of this pesky EU right before winter starts to feel the consequences of daring to break away from Russian dependence. Russia made tons of money in past months on oil and gas due to elevated prices. Money ain't what they need desperately now, rather massive civil unrest in EU to weaken Ukraine support and punish. Those who decide have stellar-size egos which are getting continuously humiliated by recent development. Don't underestimate pettiness of a ego-maniac person who has tremendous power and thinks about themselves as somebody larger-than-life and on a life mission. Anyway financial consequences of not selling gas anymore won't affect anyhow the folks on top, and clearly russian population is just cannon fodder for them. Its political and military move. Realistically only US and Russia have the capacity to do 3 attacks like this simultaneously. This all benefits US too in some ways, but if I have to decide between those 2 options, for me personally its a no brainer. Has anybody checked Russian reaction? Sometimes its quite obvious from how they say things / what they don't say whats really happening and how much they actually care. For me its not easy to see this in western media and I don't speak russian to check source directly.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
phpthrowaway99 4y ago
This makes zero sense to me. What does Russia get by destroying their own pipeline? If they wanted to shutoff gas, thats just a turn of a valve. Russia looses massive leverage by no longer being able to deliver gas, even if they wanted to. Prior to this, if the public got cold enough, they could tell their government "forget Ukraine, we need gas. Go agree to get it or we will vote you out ASAP". Now.... There's no point in settling anything with Russia, since you're not going to get their gas anyway.
- migro23 4y ago
  People need to stop thinking of 'Russia' (or any other country for that matter) as a single monolith. For example, a possible motive that may be bad for Russia but good for Putin is that maybe he wants to deter any would be assassination attempt coming from within the Kremlin by making it abundantly clear that there will be no going back to business as usual if he was to be eliminated. Blowing up the Nord Stream pipelines is a very good way to achieve that. We as regular citizens have limited info, really we don't know what's going on. But don't assume it definitely isn't Russia because of whatever reason that happens to seem plausible to you.

phpthrowaway99 4y ago

Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on. Now if the pipelines are destroyed, no matter how cold and angry citizens in the EU get, EU leadership has no reason to give in to Russian since that now won't get the gas turned back on. If anything, this points to Ukraine or the US doing it.

libertine 4y ago
>Russia's greatest leverage was Europe needing their gas, and eventually agreeing to stop supporting Ukraine in order to get the gas turned back on. That boat has sailed some time ago - you don't need to destroy something that's guaranteed it won't be used for decades probably, if ever again. No country in the West will do any trade with Russia under Putin. There's simply no turning back when you throw diplomacy and international laws out the window, and hide under nuclear threat. In my point of view this was clearly a message that ANY gas that passes through that sea might have the same faith - even in NATO territory. It wasn't by chance that it happened the same day a new gas pipe was opened between Norway and Poland: 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... Not to mention that if anyone wants to PUSH GAS PRICES UP, this is a great way to spread panic in the markets "oh no!!! that door wont open again!!!". I only see positives to Russia in this event, not a single positive for anyone else.
- phpthrowaway99 4y ago
  I see huge positives for Ukraine and by proxy the US by removing leverage from Russia.
  - libertine 4y ago
    What leverage?
    - phpthrowaway99 4y ago

sschueller 4y ago

Yet it was the United States president that told a German reporter that NS2 will never go online and the US will see to that. Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it." Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?" Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that." abcn.ws/3B5SScx

r00fus 4y ago
So? that already happened. It's offline by German decision, requested by the US/Ukraine.