14 ms·
Nord Stream leaks confirmed as sabotage, Sweden says
- nells 4y ago
- maximilianburke 4y ago
- DSingularity 4y ago
- maximilianburke 4y agoIf Russia doesn't want military buildups near its borders then it should stop invading its neighbours.
- arrrg 4y agoEurope‘s goal has to be to create a world in which Nordstream is not needed anymore. And it was Russia that invaded Ukraine. Obviously military buildup is the correct response to that incredibly callous action. Russia has to lose this war, there is no alternative.
- bilekas 4y ago> Instead of using mutual interest to sway the Russians This is a bit of a strange perspective.. The EU was the largest buyer of LNG from Russia, Russia had everything to gain economically. There are a wealth of issues involved, one of those is the Russian paranoia surrounding the "Big Bad NATO" when last I checked, NATO never annexed anywhere. In fact they go out of their way to AVOID conflicts. Putin and co's claims that Russia was under threat is just nonsense.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoNo? There was so much talk pre Feb. 25 of steadily moving away from Russian imports, especially of natural gas. Obviously every euro that's moved away represents a loss of mutual interest with Russia. If the EU guaranteed they would send X billions every month forever, on the condition of no military invasion, then I highly doubt the Kremlin would have been as aggressive.
- bilekas 4y agoBut Russia has had decades* to diversify its economy, the EU can't hoold the bill for their lack of forward thinking and corrupt oligarchs. > If the EU guaranteed they would send X billions every month forever, on the condition of no military invasion, then I highly doubt the Kremlin would have been as aggressive. I'm sure you mean this facetiously but it's worth pointing out how ridiculous this sounds, like being extorted by Russia ? Edit : Decades not generations.
- MichaelZuo 4y agoIt is extortion, though there's no real way around it in dealings with Russia as they have very peculiar red lines, and they are very determined to defend them. It probably would have been smarter for the EU to just pay up instead of paying 2x or 3x more for less than nothing, since all the money spent instead on military equipment, soldiers, ammunition, etc., is just turned into scrap and body bags on the battlefield. Which the EU will likely have to pay to clean up and restore in the future.
- DSingularity 4y agoSorry but are they peculiar? I wonder how the US would respond to Iran in the hypothetical where they forge military alliances with Cuba and then later start expanding to Mexico. Because that’s the direct analog to what’s happening in Eastern Europe.
- bilekas 4y ago
- pfdietz 4y agoAh, appeasement. I've heard Europe has had great experience with that.
- waffleiron 4y agoIt worked in relation with the US and it’s illegal wars
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MichaelCollins 4y agoThe relevant difference between America and Russia is that Eastern European countries choose to ally with America because they fear Russia, not the other way around.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- vorpalhex 4y agoPressure doesn't really prevent your people from being shot, your land being taken and your cities destroyed. It's great in the early stages to dissuade that sort of thing, but ultimately you need weaponry and manpower to counter military threats. If you are being punched, you are done arguing with the bully. Hit them back.
- wolfium3 4y agoI sincerely hope they don't repair it and instead focus more on building up infrastructure around renewable energy sources.
- baybal2 4y ago
- holyharvey 4y ago
- mikewarot 4y agoThat's a rather energy blind view of the world. Europe isn't an optimal location for solar or wind.
- conceptme 4y agoEurope is large and lots of places are using both wind and solar the issue is storage and have something that does not causes peaks and lows on the net
- _aavaa_ 4y agoThere are other renewables, and other green sources of energy beyond wind/solar. The elephant in the room that Europe is slowly starting to look at is nuclear.
- pchangr 4y agoI live in Europe and .. from my perspective it really isn’t. Chernobyl traumatized Europe and if anything they are all looking away from it.
- up2isomorphism 4y agoPlease stop trying to give strategic opinions to something you have no idea of and don’t start to starving yourself while looking for a better land to farm.
- tsimionescu 4y agoI don't think anyone doubted that this was sabotage. The interesting thing will be to see if it can be determined which party was actually responsible - there are valid reasons to suspect most of those involved in the war.
- lancelot-ru 4y ago
- miguelazo 4y agoIt’s extremely obvious who was responsible. It’s a testament to how badly US/Western media is beholden to its war machine that there’s any question. It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect. What a time to be alive. Orwell couldn’t have crafted such a ridiculous situation.
- andsoitis 4y ago> It’s extremely obvious who was responsible. Who?
- mhermher 4y agoThe US and UK in some form.
- krisoft 4y agoWere they holding hands? Or one sabotaged one pipe and the other the other? Do you have anything to support this other than your word here? I believe you of course, but its better to have some evidence or something.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> Were they holding hands? Or one sabotaged one pipe and the other the other? Yes, that's a distinct possibility. The US and UK are tight, particularly with underwater stuff. They have a history of sharing submarine secrets with each other. Even reactor technology and screw/pumpjet design. That's some of the most secret stuff America and the UK have, and they share it with each other. It's fair to suspect that one may have consulted with the other before doing something like this.
- kornhole 4y agoThanks for a big nothing burger Sweden. We knew this was sabotage from the beginning. Swedish investigators said at the beginning of this that they were not disclosing some sensitive information discovered. That told me enough. Look at who benefits from removing Russia's main leverage over Europe and the ability to export more LNG to Europe and become their new dependency for energy.
- kruxigt 4y ago
- oezi 4y agoWell there was some discussion (even here on HN) if this was initially just an accident caused by them shutting down the pipeline too quickly. Apparently this can cause an ice blob to form which races down the pipe as the pressure differential builds. This blob could easily blow up a pipe.
- kornhole 4y agoBut to blow up more than one pipeline by this accident at the same time would be an unlikely coincidence. My point is that everybody knew it was sabotage from the outset, and this Swedish team was supposed to be trying to figure out who did it. If in the end they have nothing to report but the obvious, what good did they do? It seems like their investigation was compromised and any evidence buried.
- seydor 4y agoI would love to know the alternative scenarios. Whales? Sharks? Herring?
- kneebonian 4y agoIt's the flipping octopods man, they've realized its their time and this is the opening move before Great Cuthulu ascends from his dread city of Ryleh and brings about his nightmarish blood soaked rain of horror, which will be carried out by his cephalopod minions.
- akgoel 4y agoMy favorite one was that methane clathrates had formed when the shut-in pipelines stopped flowing, and then were improperly de-pressurized to prepare for capitulation from Europe.
- rhn_mk1 4y agohttps://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html https://thelawdogfiles.com/2022/09/nordstream.html TL;DR improper maintenance.
- michaelt 4y agoIf you google "hydrate plug" you'll find a theory the explosion was an accident. Apparently gas pipelines can get blocked if they're turned off and left with gas in them, and inept attempts to fix it can cause an explosion. Of course, you'd think if anyone had a lot of experience with gas pipelines, it would be Russia....
- KingLancelot 4y agoAmerican ships were there, and America had the motive to do it.
- dandanua 4y agoWhat is the motive? Making Europe enemies instead of allies? Great strategy, though I'm sure Trump would like it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- KingLancelot 4y agoBidet himself said he’d blow it up, not to mention it cuts Russia off financially. And American ships were in the area.
- _kbh_ 4y ago> Bidet himself said he’d blow it up, not to mention it cuts Russia off financially. They never said they would blow it up thats a mischaracterisation of what was actually said. > And American ships were in the area. Russian ships where also in the area.
- foverzar 4y agoNo risk of Germany making deals with Russians + demand for American "molecules of freedom". > Making Europe enemies instead of allies? Oh please, who in Europe would even dare to shift the narrative towards regarding US as an enemy? Almost nobody in the whole world is THAT crazy. Definitely not in Europe - when was the last time they did (or even said) anything against the US? They'll just blame Russia and everyone will forget that the US was even a suspect in just a few years.
- PicassoCTs 4y agoThe interesting thing is, as this war has shown, drones are cheap and plenty - and available to everyone, not just state actors. I think we can expect lots of drone strikes on oil/gas infrastructure, simply because its the soft underbelly of our current energy systems. As soon as we manage to radicalize the climate change protests, this will be a popular type of target, to force humanity to progress to other energy sources.
- KETpXDDzR 4y agoI always like to ask myself what the motive is. - The US, bc they want to sell more LNG. However, that's very limited by LNG terminals atm. - China, so that Russia is forced to sell to them and for a cheaper price (and China want to be less dependent on LNG via ships) - Russia not so much. They want to sell gas to Europe and now that the pipelines are broken, they can't use it as leverage anymore - UK and other European countries: To stop discussions about starting to purchase gas from Russia again Edit: Formatting
- ratg13 4y agoAnother one for the US/UK would be to prevent Russia from selling to wider markets at inflated prices, which has been the only thing preventing their economy from collapsing.
- pydry 4y agoLNG terminals are expensive, take years to build and are a complete waste of money if a pipeline is about to be switched on. So, this is a good way to get investment for some LNG terminals approved.
- oezi 4y agoRussia didn't want to sell to Europe once Europe said that they are going to wind down purchases anyway.
- coffeebeqn 4y agoThis is a very naive take in Russia. It’s effectively a dictatorship and there’s no reason to think that one of their main goals is rational economic expansion
- KETpXDDzR 4y agoAccording to Adam Curtis [0], Putin might be a puppet, controlled by a group of oligarchs. The hope that once Putin goes, everything will be alright is an utopian idea. IMO the Russian government might use Putin as a scapegoat, replace him, and use that to deny any wrongdoing ("It was all his idea"). [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=663vLIYBcpI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=663vLIYBcpI
- hackandthink 4y agoI can't find the Nordstream blow up on any prediction market (Metaculus, ..). Did I miss something or is "who dunnit?" here taboo?
- Isinlor 4y agoThere is no taboo, figure out reliable operationalization and submit the question yourself.
- hackandthink 4y agoFair enough. I will try. Metaculus: Pending This content now needs to be approved by community moderators. 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage
- fabian2k 4y agoEveryone that thinks it's obvious the US or some other ally of Germany did this is completely ignoring just how big of a risk this kind of action would be. There is an enormous difference between an enemy/opponent like Russia destroying infrastructure and an ally doing this. And no, this isn't the same as eavesdropping on the phones of politicians and other stuff the US has done to its allies. There would be a minor benefit to the US when destroying the pipelines, but a vastly larger risk if it became public. The benefit is really minor, it's a bit of profit for the gas industry. And even that small benefit requires the assumption that Germany would have dropped support for Ukraine to get Russia to deliver gas again, which is extremely unlikely. Even if you consider the US to be very ruthless, the cost/benefit ratio simply doesn't even come close to anywhere where this would be a rational choice for the US to blow up the pipelines.
- tim333 4y ago>The benefit is really minor, it's a bit of profit for the gas industry Not at all really. We've mostly had peace since WW2 on the basis that countries can get on with their thing in peace without being invaded and if someone tries to invade the neighbours the UN/US will try to stop it. We now have Russia trying to break that mostly using the money it got from selling gas/oil. In the early days of the war Germany was sending 200m euro a day to Russia for gas which was using it to fund stuff. The US wants to stop Russia but doesn't want to get into a nuclear war so it's doing things like sanctions and quite likely this. Biden announced if Putin sent tanks into Ukraine they US would "end" Nord Stream 2. So if they didn't do it it would be a sign of weakness. So it's a world peace thing rather than a bit of profit for gas companies.
- photochemsyn 4y agoAs an aside, note that the ongoing geopolitical conflict between the USA and Russia revolves mainly around the global oil & gas market, IMO (which is somewhat biased as I focus on energy issues). In particular, it's over where the revenue from oil and gas sales is deposited (hence the related currency flow controversies). This has been an ongoing point of conflict for the past two decades, dating back (IMO) to Putin's rejection of an Exxon bid for majority ownership in Russia's largest oil company in 2003. Exxon did go on to build the Sakhalin-1 project for Russia (comparable to Shell's involvement in Sakhalin-2) in the following decade, so it wasn't yet a complete split (that has now occured with Sakahalin, as Russia is in complete control of output and Exxon/Shell etc. have left as of 2022). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin-I Blowing up major pipelines is a serious escalation, however. One step beyond that would be blowing up LNG tankers (which would also include loss of life, i.e. the ship's crew, assuming this was done offshore - near-shore would be much worse). The real prize in this conflict is control of and access to the European energy market, and control of the resulting revenue streams. Of course, Europe would be better off with massive renewable build-out, but for whatever reasons European leaders have been slow to adopt this strategy, and now they're in the unenviable position of having to pay premium prices regardless of which supplier they eventually turn to. Interestingly, such a move would like cause a collapse in world oil prices to the point that expensive-to-operate fossil projects (US & Russian LNG projects that is) would likely become mutually uneconomical. Regardless, reckless escalation of this nature is a bad idea, and should not be encouraged or cheered on.
- selivanovp 4y agoThe way they talk about all the evidence they have but won’t make public it’s obvious that they know who did it, and it wasn’t Russia. It’s definitely either USA or UK, maybe with a trigger happy Ukrainian on board also.