3 ms·

The number of anti-russian-infrastructure sabotage attacks happening in recent days is getting troubling. First Nordstream and now this. It seems unlikely tha

The number of anti-russian-infrastructure sabotage attacks happening in recent days is getting troubling. First Nordstream and now this. It seems unlikely that this was a missile strike or a boat attack from the analyses I have seen. A car bomb or a big explosive placed on the top of the bridge seems like the most likely possibility. This attack is certainly something that a Ukrainian special forces unit would be capable of doing. It is certainly possible that these are Russia's doing to get their population interested in the war and cut off Europe from gas, but a false flag would not be my first guess. Edit: I am not trying to say that these attacks are "anti-Russia" or that they were not done by the Russians. I am only saying that a lot of people have been destroying strategically important infrastructure operated by the Russians. Who is doing it is anyone's guess. To think we know who actually did any of these attacks without a thorough investigation is silly.

birdyrooster 4y ago
I agree the few number of attacks is concerning, hopefully this is the start of a more substantive campaign to degrade the Russians capability to wage war.
redwood 4y ago
I find it concerning that you seem to be feeding into the Russian trollfarm narrative that the Nordstream sabotage was "anti-Russian" as opposed to Russian led
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  I am not saying that it was anti-Russian, just that it was an attack on Russian infrastructure ("anti-russian-infrastructure" isn't the cleanest wording, sorry). However, we don't know who did it. It could have been the Russians. It could have been the Americans. It could have been the Germans. It could have been an extremist climate activism group. We have no idea.
- chasil 4y ago
  Who would have a motivation to disrupt Nordstream, and why? There are many, many scenarios that could result in everything that we have seen.
- h4n1 4y ago
  Why on earth would Russia blow up one of their own most important sources of both income and leverage over Europe?
  - atoav 4y ago
    I asked myself the same question, but one theory I sort of found imaginable was that this was about internal political stability and signposting. To get the part of Russias elite on board who just wanted to go back to selling gas/oil to Europe a sacrifice had to be made. I mean not that I find that very likely, but it is an explaination
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I think this is the most plausible theory that explains Russian backing. An alternative theory is that this was an accident from them trying to fix hydrate plugs in the pipes, and doing it wrong. Another possibility is that Russian popular support for the war could be flagging, and Putin was trying to drum up unity. However, Putin has not been shy about simply seizing assets using the Russian legal system, so destroying an important strategic asset to keep the oligarchs in line seems like an extreme move. The popular support battle, for Putin, already seems to be lost, and it's unclear why blowing up a pipeline would help. If he did blow up the pipeline, whether it was an accident or a power play, blaming the US (which he is doing) makes a lot of sense. The elephant in the room is that there is a great reason why the US (or Ukraine, if they had the operational capability, or Turkey or France, for that matter) would blow up the pipeline: it closes off Europe's options to buy oil from Russia this coming winter, which, in turn, ensures that they have no reason not to support the war. However, if they did blow up the pipeline, they certainly couldn't admit it, and they would need to find a scapegoat, and the best scapegoat is the country they want Europe to be angry at: Russia. The US has an additional possible motivation: it opens the path to selling LNG to the EU. So here we are. Russia blames the US, the US and NATO blame Russia, and nobody has claimed responsibility. This is consistent with either truth of who actually did it. Eventually, we may know the truth about what happened. We certainly don't know today.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
bee_rider 4y ago
Destroying infrastructure is part of war, Ukraine has obviously lost a lot of infrastructure as well. Not sure about the pipeline, whoever did that seems to have made sure to do it in a manner that leaves enough ambiguity for everyone to just imagine whatever they want as the cause. For the bridge, I'd be be surprised if it wasn't someone at least intending to work in favor of Ukraine. Maybe it was planned from the top, maybe it was done by irregulars, maybe it is somewhere in between like special forces on a really, really long leash. But it is used to bring in troops and supplies, seems like a smart target, right?

birdyrooster 4y ago

I agree the few number of attacks is concerning, hopefully this is the start of a more substantive campaign to degrade the Russians capability to wage war.

redwood 4y ago

I find it concerning that you seem to be feeding into the Russian trollfarm narrative that the Nordstream sabotage was "anti-Russian" as opposed to Russian led

pclmulqdq 4y ago
I am not saying that it was anti-Russian, just that it was an attack on Russian infrastructure ("anti-russian-infrastructure" isn't the cleanest wording, sorry). However, we don't know who did it. It could have been the Russians. It could have been the Americans. It could have been the Germans. It could have been an extremist climate activism group. We have no idea.
chasil 4y ago
Who would have a motivation to disrupt Nordstream, and why? There are many, many scenarios that could result in everything that we have seen.
h4n1 4y ago
Why on earth would Russia blow up one of their own most important sources of both income and leverage over Europe?
- atoav 4y ago
  I asked myself the same question, but one theory I sort of found imaginable was that this was about internal political stability and signposting. To get the part of Russias elite on board who just wanted to go back to selling gas/oil to Europe a sacrifice had to be made. I mean not that I find that very likely, but it is an explaination
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    I think this is the most plausible theory that explains Russian backing. An alternative theory is that this was an accident from them trying to fix hydrate plugs in the pipes, and doing it wrong. Another possibility is that Russian popular support for the war could be flagging, and Putin was trying to drum up unity. However, Putin has not been shy about simply seizing assets using the Russian legal system, so destroying an important strategic asset to keep the oligarchs in line seems like an extreme move. The popular support battle, for Putin, already seems to be lost, and it's unclear why blowing up a pipeline would help. If he did blow up the pipeline, whether it was an accident or a power play, blaming the US (which he is doing) makes a lot of sense. The elephant in the room is that there is a great reason why the US (or Ukraine, if they had the operational capability, or Turkey or France, for that matter) would blow up the pipeline: it closes off Europe's options to buy oil from Russia this coming winter, which, in turn, ensures that they have no reason not to support the war. However, if they did blow up the pipeline, they certainly couldn't admit it, and they would need to find a scapegoat, and the best scapegoat is the country they want Europe to be angry at: Russia. The US has an additional possible motivation: it opens the path to selling LNG to the EU. So here we are. Russia blames the US, the US and NATO blame Russia, and nobody has claimed responsibility. This is consistent with either truth of who actually did it. Eventually, we may know the truth about what happened. We certainly don't know today.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago

bee_rider 4y ago

Destroying infrastructure is part of war, Ukraine has obviously lost a lot of infrastructure as well. Not sure about the pipeline, whoever did that seems to have made sure to do it in a manner that leaves enough ambiguity for everyone to just imagine whatever they want as the cause. For the bridge, I'd be be surprised if it wasn't someone at least intending to work in favor of Ukraine. Maybe it was planned from the top, maybe it was done by irregulars, maybe it is somewhere in between like special forces on a really, really long leash. But it is used to bring in troops and supplies, seems like a smart target, right?