6 ms·

On Nordstream explosion "Russia denies responsibility for the explosions. But few doubt that the Kremlin did it." I can stop reading at this line to know that

On Nordstream explosion "Russia denies responsibility for the explosions. But few doubt that the Kremlin did it." I can stop reading at this line to know that this isn't journalism, it's opinion at best and propaganda at worst. I expect better from HN. At this point if Moscow gets obliterated in a Nuclear Mushroom cloud, I expect the next mornings headlines to be "And here's how Russia benefits from this"

pydry 4y ago
Yeah, this is the mirror image of RT.
Ligma123 4y ago
Did you really expect anything else from "the Economist"?
chimen 4y ago
https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=83 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=83
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  And that implies blowing it up?
dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
You denounce their pronouncement but what have you added to the discussion with your comment? The explosions benefit Russia because it gives them cover for a permanent stop to supplying Germany with gas, something that was already a given because Germany would never buy gas from Russia again due to their atrocities in the war. In the Russians' mind it gives them the "moral high ground" rather than humiliation and makes out the West to be the villain. This is typical Russian logic. On the other side there is no rational reason for the West to destroy the pipelines, outside of strained conspiracy theories that the US wanted to stop Germany from buying gas from Russia and buy it from the US, which was already happening. Nevermind that the risk/reward of such an action would be stupid for the US and that it has other, much safer ways to achieve the same result.
- tuatoru 4y ago
  It does not benefit Russia. It benefits Putin by removing a motivation for other Moscow elites to depose him. They can't make a deal with Europe to turn the gas back on in exchange for Europe supporting their new regime. Ordinary Russians need an income.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    What is happening is that the thin line between Putin and Russians gets more and more blurred. When the war broke out in 24 February, there were a few protests, but they were quite scarce, and the opinion polls presented in Western media showed that Russians support Putin's war. Now after the mobilization things changed a bit, but it's very clear that many Russians, even well-educated, have soaked in a lot of what is being constantly broadcast in state media: that Ukrainians are subhuman Nazis that have been killing Russians for 8 years so Russia has no choice but save the children. When you think of it, it's really sad. Because now that Russians have clearly realized that this is not any "special operation" but a real war, their war, and that they are going to die in it, it's already too late - it's even difficult to escape these days if you don't have ample resources.
- muchtest 4y ago
  - dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
    Where is the xenophobia? It's a fact amply illustrated by their pronouncements made during the war and recent history, and standard KGB fare. You still haven't providing any counterargument to my points other than a ad-hominem attack.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
    > Nice Xenophobia I think it a bit self-contradictory that the Russian media always accuse the West of being Russophobic and at the same time air programs like this one: https://nitter.net/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504 https://nitter.net/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504
joachim4 4y ago
On the Nordstream explosion, Russia continued to push gas into the pipeline after the explosion. Why, if it is broken, lose that gas to kill a whole ecosystem close the Danish / Swedish exclusive zones? Also which other country does have an interest in cutting internet cables between Europe and the US?
- MrRiddle 4y ago
sho 4y ago
> I can stop reading at this line to know that this isn't journalism, it's opinion at best It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community. Hardly propaganda. And equating The Economist with Russia Today is just ludicrous and a sad demonstration of the effectiveness of the "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda technique employed by, well, guess who. (hint - same guys who blew up the pipeline)
- geysersam 4y ago
  It's opinion because there is not a sliver of proof who blew up the nordstream pipes. Only speculation based on the motives of different parties. It's that simple.
- hackandthink 4y ago
  I agree: "It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community." I disagree: "Hardly propaganda." A loneley voice in the geopolitical community (August Hanning): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33066745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33066745
- yucky 4y ago
  >It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community. How exactly did Russia sneak so deep into enemy territory to blow it up and sneak back out again? Especially considering how incompetent we hear that they are in literally every single article written? I've yet to read a single explanation of this, and in fact you would think we're not supposed to look on a map and ask ourselves this question since it doesn't seem to even be asked by "everyone in the geopolitical community". Doesn't that seem strange?
  - sofixa 4y ago
    Russia literally has submarines built for this type of purpose (e.g. the Belgorod). And yes, their armed forces are a clown fest of incompetence, but they still have the occasional hit/stroke of luck. They do genuinely produce some good equipment (e.g. BMP-3) that is easy to maintain, where they fail mostly is around the human factor.
tuatoru 4y ago
> ... it's opinion at best and propaganda at worst. I expect better Life is going to be one long series of disappointments for you. Well done for engaging your critical thinking faculties, but expecting unbiased facts is, well, naïve. Keep being sceptical. Especially of the things you want to believe.
incomingpain 4y ago
When countries are at war, you don't get to see the opposing point of view. Being said by the opinion writer, is they don't deny the Kremlin did it. Which is on the face of it utterly false. They likely aren't lying and probably believe it to be true. It's really a sign of how bad journalism as become. If the kremlin wants to shut down the pipeline, they simply shutdown. The sender and receivers are the last folks who will sabotage or damage. So who did? It's going to be a well funded country with something to win. Norway just got their pipe online literally 1 day after. Canada/USA want to export their energy. Well not canada, they lack the capability. Middle east? Maybe? Unlikely. Climate groups? Very unlikely. China or India? Absolutely. They are getting a huge discount on russian energy now.
yehosef 4y ago
It's reasonable to assume that some govt did it, the number of options is small. The two likely suspects are the US or Russia. Russia in active aggressor in this conflict and has the most to gain by killing the pipeline since the gas they now still sell is more expensive and they have other places to ship the gas (if anyone know a reference to Russian gas exports, I'd like to see). For America to do it is harder to believe (even though there is a video of Biden alluding that they will "shut it down"). Even though they might have what to gain from LNG exports - the destruction of the European economy is not something that will help the US in the mid/long-term.
- kcplate 4y ago
  > For America to do it is harder to believe (even though there is a video of Biden alluding that they will "shut it down") It would be one of the few actions the US could take in 2022 that would have pretty much bi-partisan political support. That to me lends a level of credibility to the possibility along with Biden’s inability to handle off the cuff questions, even though I suspect that the likely culprit is not the US. However there is zero doubt in my mind that there are a group of folks within the Biden administration who cringe every time he runs off script. It’s said that President Obama once said “Never underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck something up”.

pydry 4y ago

Yeah, this is the mirror image of RT.

Ligma123 4y ago

Did you really expect anything else from "the Economist"?

chimen 4y ago

https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=83 https://youtu.be/OS4O8rGRLf8?t=83

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
And that implies blowing it up?

dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago

You denounce their pronouncement but what have you added to the discussion with your comment? The explosions benefit Russia because it gives them cover for a permanent stop to supplying Germany with gas, something that was already a given because Germany would never buy gas from Russia again due to their atrocities in the war. In the Russians' mind it gives them the "moral high ground" rather than humiliation and makes out the West to be the villain. This is typical Russian logic. On the other side there is no rational reason for the West to destroy the pipelines, outside of strained conspiracy theories that the US wanted to stop Germany from buying gas from Russia and buy it from the US, which was already happening. Nevermind that the risk/reward of such an action would be stupid for the US and that it has other, much safer ways to achieve the same result.

tuatoru 4y ago
It does not benefit Russia. It benefits Putin by removing a motivation for other Moscow elites to depose him. They can't make a deal with Europe to turn the gas back on in exchange for Europe supporting their new regime. Ordinary Russians need an income.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  What is happening is that the thin line between Putin and Russians gets more and more blurred. When the war broke out in 24 February, there were a few protests, but they were quite scarce, and the opinion polls presented in Western media showed that Russians support Putin's war. Now after the mobilization things changed a bit, but it's very clear that many Russians, even well-educated, have soaked in a lot of what is being constantly broadcast in state media: that Ukrainians are subhuman Nazis that have been killing Russians for 8 years so Russia has no choice but save the children. When you think of it, it's really sad. Because now that Russians have clearly realized that this is not any "special operation" but a real war, their war, and that they are going to die in it, it's already too late - it's even difficult to escape these days if you don't have ample resources.
muchtest 4y ago
- dkjaudyeqooe 4y ago
  Where is the xenophobia? It's a fact amply illustrated by their pronouncements made during the war and recent history, and standard KGB fare. You still haven't providing any counterargument to my points other than a ad-hominem attack.
- hdjjhhvvhga 4y ago
  > Nice Xenophobia I think it a bit self-contradictory that the Russian media always accuse the West of being Russophobic and at the same time air programs like this one: https://nitter.net/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504 https://nitter.net/JuliaDavisNews/status/1584054018145685504

joachim4 4y ago

On the Nordstream explosion, Russia continued to push gas into the pipeline after the explosion. Why, if it is broken, lose that gas to kill a whole ecosystem close the Danish / Swedish exclusive zones? Also which other country does have an interest in cutting internet cables between Europe and the US?

MrRiddle 4y ago

sho 4y ago

> I can stop reading at this line to know that this isn't journalism, it's opinion at best It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community. Hardly propaganda. And equating The Economist with Russia Today is just ludicrous and a sad demonstration of the effectiveness of the "Firehose of falsehood" propaganda technique employed by, well, guess who. (hint - same guys who blew up the pipeline)

geysersam 4y ago
It's opinion because there is not a sliver of proof who blew up the nordstream pipes. Only speculation based on the motives of different parties. It's that simple.
hackandthink 4y ago
I agree: "It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community." I disagree: "Hardly propaganda." A loneley voice in the geopolitical community (August Hanning): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33066745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33066745
yucky 4y ago
>It's the "opinion" of pretty much everyone in the geopolitical community. How exactly did Russia sneak so deep into enemy territory to blow it up and sneak back out again? Especially considering how incompetent we hear that they are in literally every single article written? I've yet to read a single explanation of this, and in fact you would think we're not supposed to look on a map and ask ourselves this question since it doesn't seem to even be asked by "everyone in the geopolitical community". Doesn't that seem strange?
- sofixa 4y ago
  Russia literally has submarines built for this type of purpose (e.g. the Belgorod). And yes, their armed forces are a clown fest of incompetence, but they still have the occasional hit/stroke of luck. They do genuinely produce some good equipment (e.g. BMP-3) that is easy to maintain, where they fail mostly is around the human factor.

tuatoru 4y ago

> ... it's opinion at best and propaganda at worst. I expect better Life is going to be one long series of disappointments for you. Well done for engaging your critical thinking faculties, but expecting unbiased facts is, well, naïve. Keep being sceptical. Especially of the things you want to believe.

incomingpain 4y ago

When countries are at war, you don't get to see the opposing point of view. Being said by the opinion writer, is they don't deny the Kremlin did it. Which is on the face of it utterly false. They likely aren't lying and probably believe it to be true. It's really a sign of how bad journalism as become. If the kremlin wants to shut down the pipeline, they simply shutdown. The sender and receivers are the last folks who will sabotage or damage. So who did? It's going to be a well funded country with something to win. Norway just got their pipe online literally 1 day after. Canada/USA want to export their energy. Well not canada, they lack the capability. Middle east? Maybe? Unlikely. Climate groups? Very unlikely. China or India? Absolutely. They are getting a huge discount on russian energy now.

yehosef 4y ago

It's reasonable to assume that some govt did it, the number of options is small. The two likely suspects are the US or Russia. Russia in active aggressor in this conflict and has the most to gain by killing the pipeline since the gas they now still sell is more expensive and they have other places to ship the gas (if anyone know a reference to Russian gas exports, I'd like to see). For America to do it is harder to believe (even though there is a video of Biden alluding that they will "shut it down"). Even though they might have what to gain from LNG exports - the destruction of the European economy is not something that will help the US in the mid/long-term.

kcplate 4y ago
> For America to do it is harder to believe (even though there is a video of Biden alluding that they will "shut it down") It would be one of the few actions the US could take in 2022 that would have pretty much bi-partisan political support. That to me lends a level of credibility to the possibility along with Biden’s inability to handle off the cuff questions, even though I suspect that the likely culprit is not the US. However there is zero doubt in my mind that there are a group of folks within the Biden administration who cringe every time he runs off script. It’s said that President Obama once said “Never underestimate Joe Biden’s ability to fuck something up”.