5 ms·

I mean, the problem here is that you basically assumed what my position is and then argued against it, but it isn't based on anything that I have said so far.

I mean, the problem here is that you basically assumed what my position is and then argued against it, but it isn't based on anything that I have said so far. The only point I want to address is that I really don't believe Putin is acting rationally in this war. Nothing he has done has been rational. If he cared about the billions of euro flowing through those pipes, he simply wouldn't have attacked Ukraine in the first place. Judging him by what he's done in the past is pointless - he has congratulated and praised Zelensky when he was elected, now suddenly the guy is a fascist neo-nazi? Putin has military objectives and he won't stop until he achieves them. I wouldn't support an all our NATO Vs Russia war, but I do think that Putin shouldn't be allowed to annex parts of Ukraine just because he wants to - because yes, as a Polish man that triggers a very deep response, response that tells me that at some point, maybe not now but at some point, he will come and just declare that portions of Poland are now Russian. The comparison to Germany isn't really relevant here because Germany isn't attacking its neighbours currently like Russia is - but if it was I'd feel the same for very similar reasons.

avgcorrection 4y ago
If you claim that Putin isn’t rational then you can claim that he is liable to do anything and everything since his actions don’t make sense. Hence the obvious question: why would one theory be more likely than any other? You yourself haven’t given any rational reasons for your original theory.
- gambiting 4y ago
  Trying to scare EU/NATO to back off or a country of 50 million people will go without gas this winter isn't a rational theory? Seems like a very clear thing to threaten in this situation. >>Hence the obvious question: why would one theory be more likely than any other? Well, I mean, some theories are obviously more likely than others - it's more likely that Russia blew it up than that Japan blew it up, right?
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    No, it isn’t a rational theory. Because the only elaboration you have given is that you are a worried Polish person. Putin has already given quite brazen warnings like “remember that we have nukes”. And yet he would covertly sabotage Russia’s own pipeline? What kind of a limp-wristed warning is that? > Well, I mean, some theories are obviously more likely than others - it's more likely that Russia blew it up than that Japan blew it up, right? Yes, a country on the other side of the planet probably had nothing to do with this. Well said! Probably not Fiji either. Any more brilliant counters? Alternatively there are countries that are closer to the Baltic Sea which are both not Russia and Japan… as well as countries that have geopolitical interests in that general area.
    - 5560675260 4y ago
      Reminding about nukes doesn't work. The only outcome is being reminded by US that Russia will not survive consequences of using them. Nobody takes that as a serious treat. Now pipes being blown up in a somewhat deniable way is treat, because that's something that can realistically happen without Moscow being nuked in the process. Russia being a culprit here is so unthinkable for you probably because you vastly overestimate value of pipelines being affected. NS2 was never going to deliver gas, NS1 was turned off, likely forever. And hey, Yamal is still there, unaffected, if Russia actually will want to sell anything to Europe instead of China.
      - avgcorrection 4y ago
        > Reminding about nukes doesn't work. The only outcome is being reminded by US that Russia will not survive consequences of using them. Nobody takes that as a serious treat. The world would not survive the consequences of a full-scale nuclear war. It is still rational to fear nuclear war because hasty decisions could still bring it about. > Russia being a culprit here is so unthinkable for you probably because you vastly overestimate value of pipelines being affected. NS2 was never going to deliver gas, NS1 was turned off, likely forever. And hey, Yamal is still there, unaffected, if Russia actually will want to sell anything to Europe instead of China. So it is unthinkable to me because I overestimate the value of the affected pipelines. So Putin wanted to send a strong message by sabotaging useless infrastructure. A light bulb has gone off and I can see things clearly...? Refer to my other comment about blowing up a Russian ghost town to “send a message”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33026408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33026408

avgcorrection 4y ago

If you claim that Putin isn’t rational then you can claim that he is liable to do anything and everything since his actions don’t make sense. Hence the obvious question: why would one theory be more likely than any other? You yourself haven’t given any rational reasons for your original theory.

gambiting 4y ago
Trying to scare EU/NATO to back off or a country of 50 million people will go without gas this winter isn't a rational theory? Seems like a very clear thing to threaten in this situation. >>Hence the obvious question: why would one theory be more likely than any other? Well, I mean, some theories are obviously more likely than others - it's more likely that Russia blew it up than that Japan blew it up, right?
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  No, it isn’t a rational theory. Because the only elaboration you have given is that you are a worried Polish person. Putin has already given quite brazen warnings like “remember that we have nukes”. And yet he would covertly sabotage Russia’s own pipeline? What kind of a limp-wristed warning is that? > Well, I mean, some theories are obviously more likely than others - it's more likely that Russia blew it up than that Japan blew it up, right? Yes, a country on the other side of the planet probably had nothing to do with this. Well said! Probably not Fiji either. Any more brilliant counters? Alternatively there are countries that are closer to the Baltic Sea which are both not Russia and Japan… as well as countries that have geopolitical interests in that general area.
  - 5560675260 4y ago
    Reminding about nukes doesn't work. The only outcome is being reminded by US that Russia will not survive consequences of using them. Nobody takes that as a serious treat. Now pipes being blown up in a somewhat deniable way is treat, because that's something that can realistically happen without Moscow being nuked in the process. Russia being a culprit here is so unthinkable for you probably because you vastly overestimate value of pipelines being affected. NS2 was never going to deliver gas, NS1 was turned off, likely forever. And hey, Yamal is still there, unaffected, if Russia actually will want to sell anything to Europe instead of China.
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      > Reminding about nukes doesn't work. The only outcome is being reminded by US that Russia will not survive consequences of using them. Nobody takes that as a serious treat. The world would not survive the consequences of a full-scale nuclear war. It is still rational to fear nuclear war because hasty decisions could still bring it about. > Russia being a culprit here is so unthinkable for you probably because you vastly overestimate value of pipelines being affected. NS2 was never going to deliver gas, NS1 was turned off, likely forever. And hey, Yamal is still there, unaffected, if Russia actually will want to sell anything to Europe instead of China. So it is unthinkable to me because I overestimate the value of the affected pipelines. So Putin wanted to send a strong message by sabotaging useless infrastructure. A light bulb has gone off and I can see things clearly...? Refer to my other comment about blowing up a Russian ghost town to “send a message”. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33026408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33026408