5 ms·

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

by rfrey 4y ago

Ekaros 4y ago
And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.
- valuearb 4y ago
  The US finally has a coalition against Russian aggression in Europe, that is key to helping Ukraine win the war. Why would they throw this away on a stupid sabotage operation?
- ravi-delia 4y ago
  Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.
    - ravi-delia 4y ago
      Well obviously "doesn't have the operational capacity" was paired with a large but finite amount of benefit. If God came down and asked Duda if he'd like for the pipeline to blow up, that's one thing. But you also risk international condemnation if you screw it up and get caught. You could blow up a pipeline, but there's no practice round. Well, the US literally did have a practice round, but I don't think their benefit outweighs the potential backlash either. Russia really doesn't risk backlash, but on the first order seems more harmed than not. Maybe it would force Europe to reckon with a winter without Russian gas before the winter comes? Seems pretty flimsy.
      - MichaelCollins 4y ago
        > but there's no practice round. Sure there is. The Polish Navy could practice finding the pipeline as much as they want. They could also practice blowing things up underwater as much as they want. Doing both at once isn't much more of a problem. Also I think the backlash issue is overstated, particularly for America. What would Germany do, rage-quit NATO? Not a chance. Get pissy about it but do nothing? Very likely. Bury the evidence so they don't have to explain it to their public? Also very likely. In this regard, America has much more leeway than Poland.
        ravi-delia 4y ago
        Is there any plausible way a navy ship could have blown up the pipeline? Everyone knew about it pretty quickly, no? Like before a ship got more than 30 miles away? I assumed it would have been done by a small team of saboteurs on a plausibly deniable vessel, but I'm not an expert. What's the consensus? I don't think rage-quitting NATO would be the concern, but a trade war. The US bombing the pipeline is like a tariff applied outside their borders, you can't firmly discount the possibility that someone would take issue with it. Is it likely? Honestly I doubt it, but for the US to benefit western Europe would definitely need to crack come winter (which is by no means guaranteed), and it would be have to be easier to import from America than from Russia even if they did, which isn't obvious. If the US had the capacity to sell enough gas to Europe to profit from this, they wouldn't be worried about energy-hungry nations breaking the embargo!
  - namaria 4y ago
    Why do you think Poland doesn't have the operational capacity?
    - bombcar 4y ago
      People assume that since Poland can't into space, Poland certainly can't into deep water.
    - ravi-delia 4y ago
      I have no doubt anyone north of Ted Kaczynski in operational capacity could blow up the pipeline, which certainly includes Poland. But you need not just to blow up a pipeline, but definitely not get caught. It was a hostile action primarily against western European nations Poland has good relationships with. The public finding out would not go well.
- rfrey 4y ago
  There is exactly one imperialist aggressor in this conflict, and it isn't the US.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    You're implicitly assuming that the destruction of the pipeline was an imperial act of aggression, rather than a response to imperial aggression. I don't think that's a sound assumption.
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    There is only one Empire on this planet, and that is the US. Since the collapse of the British Empire, there's no other country that falls so perfectly into the definition of an empire.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  US / UK interests are well enough aligned that if one had a motive, the other might have done it for them as a favor in return for some other unknown favor. And whatever issues the UK is having now, it would not have precluded doing something as easy as this. The UK is not my first or even second suspicion, but it could have been them.
- Filligree 4y ago
  Factions in Russia do gain from it; specifically, Putin’s. There’s no point in overthrowing him to turn the pipeline back on if the pipeline doesn’t exist.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    I doubt Putin's subjects would want to overthrow him because they want to be able to sell gas again. They might overthrow him, but for other reasons.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      Subjects selling gas? I don't think he's implying a populist uprising to champion free market principles. Gazprom executives may wish to resume their lives of absurd luxury yachting around the Mediterranean. They probably don't enjoy being sanctioned and deprived of the luxury they think they're entitled to.
- RajT88 4y ago
  I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored. But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail. I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding. The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. I don't know who that leaves...
  - tut-urut-utut 4y ago
    > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. It doesn't matter if it hurts Europe, if it benefits the USA. The capital never cares about the colonies, and weakening own colonies and enemies, while at she same times strengthening themselves, is a valid strategy. Machiavellian or not, doesn't matter. Long term, Europe is bound to be dependable on LNG gas imports from the USA. Many companies are shutting down in Europe and considering moving to the place with much cheaper energy.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. How do you calculate the hurt? Absolute hurt, or relative hurt? If I take $20 from you and $10 from a homeless man, I've taken more from you in absolute terms but more from the homeless man in relative terms.
  - oceanplexian 4y ago
    The US and EU have collectively given Ukraine something like ~$100B in military aid. If they wanted someone to sabotage the pipeline (And they are the elephant in the room, with the most to lose if said pipeline is turned back on) they certainly could find the resources to do it.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Or who doesn't get harmed by it? Sometimes you might have some relatively unrelated country flexing to keep things in shambles.

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

by rfrey 4y ago

I think, when war is raging and thousands are dying gruesome deaths, it's reasonable to consider malice.

And who actually gains from this in the long run... Certainly not Germany or Russia... Should make it pretty clear. It could be UK as tradition of breaking down Europe, but they are having enough issues that the timing is entirely wrong... I don't think China cares, so maybe Arabs, but I doubt. Only really leaves USA and we know what they have historically been up to.

valuearb 4y ago
The US finally has a coalition against Russian aggression in Europe, that is key to helping Ukraine win the war. Why would they throw this away on a stupid sabotage operation?
ravi-delia 4y ago
Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. US can't really expect to sell much gas to Europe regardless, so if it was then it would be for anti-Russia reasons, which seems like a stretch. Objectively the funniest possiblity is that some cargo ship dragged it's anchor across miles of ocean and a captain is very very worried right now
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > Poland benefits but doesn't have the operational capacity. If they wanted it done bad enough, they could have found a way.
  - ravi-delia 4y ago
    Well obviously "doesn't have the operational capacity" was paired with a large but finite amount of benefit. If God came down and asked Duda if he'd like for the pipeline to blow up, that's one thing. But you also risk international condemnation if you screw it up and get caught. You could blow up a pipeline, but there's no practice round. Well, the US literally did have a practice round, but I don't think their benefit outweighs the potential backlash either. Russia really doesn't risk backlash, but on the first order seems more harmed than not. Maybe it would force Europe to reckon with a winter without Russian gas before the winter comes? Seems pretty flimsy.
    - MichaelCollins 4y ago
      > but there's no practice round. Sure there is. The Polish Navy could practice finding the pipeline as much as they want. They could also practice blowing things up underwater as much as they want. Doing both at once isn't much more of a problem. Also I think the backlash issue is overstated, particularly for America. What would Germany do, rage-quit NATO? Not a chance. Get pissy about it but do nothing? Very likely. Bury the evidence so they don't have to explain it to their public? Also very likely. In this regard, America has much more leeway than Poland.
      - ravi-delia 4y ago
        Is there any plausible way a navy ship could have blown up the pipeline? Everyone knew about it pretty quickly, no? Like before a ship got more than 30 miles away? I assumed it would have been done by a small team of saboteurs on a plausibly deniable vessel, but I'm not an expert. What's the consensus? I don't think rage-quitting NATO would be the concern, but a trade war. The US bombing the pipeline is like a tariff applied outside their borders, you can't firmly discount the possibility that someone would take issue with it. Is it likely? Honestly I doubt it, but for the US to benefit western Europe would definitely need to crack come winter (which is by no means guaranteed), and it would be have to be easier to import from America than from Russia even if they did, which isn't obvious. If the US had the capacity to sell enough gas to Europe to profit from this, they wouldn't be worried about energy-hungry nations breaking the embargo!
- namaria 4y ago
  Why do you think Poland doesn't have the operational capacity?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    People assume that since Poland can't into space, Poland certainly can't into deep water.
  - ravi-delia 4y ago
    I have no doubt anyone north of Ted Kaczynski in operational capacity could blow up the pipeline, which certainly includes Poland. But you need not just to blow up a pipeline, but definitely not get caught. It was a hostile action primarily against western European nations Poland has good relationships with. The public finding out would not go well.
rfrey 4y ago
There is exactly one imperialist aggressor in this conflict, and it isn't the US.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  You're implicitly assuming that the destruction of the pipeline was an imperial act of aggression, rather than a response to imperial aggression. I don't think that's a sound assumption.
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  There is only one Empire on this planet, and that is the US. Since the collapse of the British Empire, there's no other country that falls so perfectly into the definition of an empire.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
US / UK interests are well enough aligned that if one had a motive, the other might have done it for them as a favor in return for some other unknown favor. And whatever issues the UK is having now, it would not have precluded doing something as easy as this. The UK is not my first or even second suspicion, but it could have been them.
Filligree 4y ago
Factions in Russia do gain from it; specifically, Putin’s. There’s no point in overthrowing him to turn the pipeline back on if the pipeline doesn’t exist.
- someweirdperson 4y ago
  I doubt Putin's subjects would want to overthrow him because they want to be able to sell gas again. They might overthrow him, but for other reasons.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    Subjects selling gas? I don't think he's implying a populist uprising to champion free market principles. Gazprom executives may wish to resume their lives of absurd luxury yachting around the Mediterranean. They probably don't enjoy being sanctioned and deprived of the luxury they think they're entitled to.
RajT88 4y ago
I have a hard time with it as well. It harms so many parties, it just doesn't make sense to be state-sponsored. But at the same time, this requires some real resources to execute something like this. I can imagine mid-sized corporations having access to the resources to do it, but not without leaving a significant paper trail. I don't imagine terrorist organizations have that kind of funding. The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. I don't know who that leaves...
- tut-urut-utut 4y ago
  > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. It'd be unusually Machiavellian for even us, if it was the US. It doesn't matter if it hurts Europe, if it benefits the USA. The capital never cares about the colonies, and weakening own colonies and enemies, while at she same times strengthening themselves, is a valid strategy. Machiavellian or not, doesn't matter. Long term, Europe is bound to be dependable on LNG gas imports from the USA. Many companies are shutting down in Europe and considering moving to the place with much cheaper energy.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > The US is a good candidate, but I don't see how it hurts Russia more than it hurts the rest of Europe. How do you calculate the hurt? Absolute hurt, or relative hurt? If I take $20 from you and $10 from a homeless man, I've taken more from you in absolute terms but more from the homeless man in relative terms.
- oceanplexian 4y ago
  The US and EU have collectively given Ukraine something like ~$100B in military aid. If they wanted someone to sabotage the pipeline (And they are the elephant in the room, with the most to lose if said pipeline is turned back on) they certainly could find the resources to do it.
bombcar 4y ago
Or who doesn't get harmed by it? Sometimes you might have some relatively unrelated country flexing to keep things in shambles.