3 ms·

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 warni

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
- brabel 4y ago
  > Nobody takes that as a serious treat. You misunderstood the threat (probably because news are always distorting things and people tend to believe uncritically in times of war). Putin's threat is very clear: he will use tactical nukes ("small" scale ones) to defend "Russia" against aggression... by annexing part of Ukraine, he gets the excuse he needed to use them against Ukrainian forces... that's why the Kremlin keeps pointing out to their "nuclear doctrine" which states that Russia may use nukes in self-defense. The annexation makes total sense when you understand that. People claiming the threats are directed at western Europe countries are misinformed or trying to generate panic intentionally. If that was the actual threat, you would be right, it wouldn't be a serious one... but the one he actually meant is very close to becoming a reality... just wait a few weeks and you'll see it... specially in case Ukraine continues imparting serious losses on Russian forces. There's approximately zero chance Russia will just go away from the territories it occupies now.
gambiting 4y ago
>>No, it isn’t a rational theory. Again, I don't really see why. What's so irrational about threatening enormous economical and societal consequences in a situation like this? Surely it's a credible threat? Is it just the fact that I'm Polish that bothers you about it, because you maybe think I can't keep a straight head about it? >>What kind of a limp-wristed warning is that?| The same one as poisoning your critics with unique poison that only Russia could have and then denying any responsibility, I guess? Sends a message, which is the main point. >>Any more brilliant counters? Do you think we can have this discussion without you being sarcastic?

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
brabel 4y ago
> Nobody takes that as a serious treat. You misunderstood the threat (probably because news are always distorting things and people tend to believe uncritically in times of war). Putin's threat is very clear: he will use tactical nukes ("small" scale ones) to defend "Russia" against aggression... by annexing part of Ukraine, he gets the excuse he needed to use them against Ukrainian forces... that's why the Kremlin keeps pointing out to their "nuclear doctrine" which states that Russia may use nukes in self-defense. The annexation makes total sense when you understand that. People claiming the threats are directed at western Europe countries are misinformed or trying to generate panic intentionally. If that was the actual threat, you would be right, it wouldn't be a serious one... but the one he actually meant is very close to becoming a reality... just wait a few weeks and you'll see it... specially in case Ukraine continues imparting serious losses on Russian forces. There's approximately zero chance Russia will just go away from the territories it occupies now.

gambiting 4y ago

>>No, it isn’t a rational theory. Again, I don't really see why. What's so irrational about threatening enormous economical and societal consequences in a situation like this? Surely it's a credible threat? Is it just the fact that I'm Polish that bothers you about it, because you maybe think I can't keep a straight head about it? >>What kind of a limp-wristed warning is that?| The same one as poisoning your critics with unique poison that only Russia could have and then denying any responsibility, I guess? Sends a message, which is the main point. >>Any more brilliant counters? Do you think we can have this discussion without you being sarcastic?