3 ms·

This is incredible mental gymnastics. Occam's razor provides a better explanation, the West did it because it handicaps a rival power.

by kneel 4y ago

j0057 4y ago
You can call it mental gymnastics, but I just call it thinking. I notice you're not really engaging with the point, which is that yes, Russia attacked its own infrastructure, and that hurts their own interests, but the effects of the attack – 1) creating more uncertainty on the European energy market on the day a Norwegian pipeline opened; 2) creating a sense of insecurity in the states around the Baltic sea; and 3) creating distrust between NATO members – are all worth the price to the Russians, because they are losing their war. One moment we're discussing nuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction, and the next we're not considering Russia blowing up some of their own infrastructure. Compared to M.A.D., blowing up a pipeline seems like a pretty cheap deal if it would benefit the Russian war effort. So, let's do some more thinking. What would USA have to benefit from attacking the pipeline between Russia and Germany? A higher price for their LNG, so more money from Europe (economically weakening their ally), and if it would come out that USA did it, it would lead to severe fractures in NATO — not at all to the USA's benefit. And how, if the USA did it, would it have increased Russia's inability to sell gas to Europe? The flow was already zero, with no prospect of it returning anytime soon, sabotage or not. According to you, the USA sabotaged an ally, at the risk of ending NATO, at almost no detriment to Russia, for some increased LNG sales money. That, I would call mental gymnastics.
- kneel 4y ago
  The US has literally blown up Russian pipelines in the past to prevent influence in Europe. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r... Very doubtful this is some sort of 8d chess game by the Russians.
  - j0057 4y ago
    That cause for that event is not undisputed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage. You still haven't explained why you think it's doubtful Russia would use sabotage in this way. This is what their entire modus operandi, just think of the various Polonium-210 and Novichok operations. You can't dispute that people are suspecting USA of having done it, does that not harm cohesion inside NATO? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido
IAmGraydon 4y ago
Mental gymnastics? It’s what Russia is best known for. Applying Occam’s razor brings you precisely to the conclusion that it was Russia.

This is incredible mental gymnastics. Occam's razor provides a better explanation, the West did it because it handicaps a rival power.

by kneel 4y ago

This is incredible mental gymnastics. Occam's razor provides a better explanation, the West did it because it handicaps a rival power.

j0057 4y ago

You can call it mental gymnastics, but I just call it thinking. I notice you're not really engaging with the point, which is that yes, Russia attacked its own infrastructure, and that hurts their own interests, but the effects of the attack – 1) creating more uncertainty on the European energy market on the day a Norwegian pipeline opened; 2) creating a sense of insecurity in the states around the Baltic sea; and 3) creating distrust between NATO members – are all worth the price to the Russians, because they are losing their war. One moment we're discussing nuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction, and the next we're not considering Russia blowing up some of their own infrastructure. Compared to M.A.D., blowing up a pipeline seems like a pretty cheap deal if it would benefit the Russian war effort. So, let's do some more thinking. What would USA have to benefit from attacking the pipeline between Russia and Germany? A higher price for their LNG, so more money from Europe (economically weakening their ally), and if it would come out that USA did it, it would lead to severe fractures in NATO — not at all to the USA's benefit. And how, if the USA did it, would it have increased Russia's inability to sell gas to Europe? The flow was already zero, with no prospect of it returning anytime soon, sabotage or not. According to you, the USA sabotaged an ally, at the risk of ending NATO, at almost no detriment to Russia, for some increased LNG sales money. That, I would call mental gymnastics.

kneel 4y ago
The US has literally blown up Russian pipelines in the past to prevent influence in Europe. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/reagan-approved-plan-to-sabotage-soviets/a9184eff-47fd-402e-beb2-63970851e130/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/02/27/r... Very doubtful this is some sort of 8d chess game by the Russians.
- j0057 4y ago
  That cause for that event is not undisputed, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage. You still haven't explained why you think it's doubtful Russia would use sabotage in this way. This is what their entire modus operandi, just think of the various Polonium-210 and Novichok operations. You can't dispute that people are suspecting USA of having done it, does that not harm cohesion inside NATO? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk-0qJXyido

IAmGraydon 4y ago

Mental gymnastics? It’s what Russia is best known for. Applying Occam’s razor brings you precisely to the conclusion that it was Russia.