9 ms·
It’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 especi
by miguelazo 4y ago
It’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.
- mhermher 4y agoYou don't think that the US and UK can jointly plan to do something without holding hands? It doesn't really matter who actually physically did it. What's important is who intended to it, which is probably both of them. Maybe nationals from other countries were involved (maybe Ukranians? Poles? Idk). But the US and UK would actually be planning/administering the operation.
- krisoft 4y ago> It doesn't really matter who actually physically did it. Well if someone says it is “extremely obvious who did it” then it kinda does matter if they can then say who did it. The fact that miguelazo couldn’t name who did it indicates that perhaps it is less than extremely obvious who did it. I agree that both the USA, and the UK has the means to covertly carry out such sabotage. I also agree that both has the motivation too. There are other countries with the means and motivation too. > maybe Ukranians? Poles? Idk That last one. That hits it on the head. The correct answer given the publicly available information is that we do not know. We should say that more often. It is a sign of strength, not of weakness.
- mhermher 4y agoWhat I mean to say is that it doesn't matter to know who physically performed the actions, only to know who planned and directed it. Just like we might blame bin Laden for 9/11 even though he didn't fly the planes. He was on the other side of the earth. Or whatever, you get the idea. But in any case, of course we don't know. But we should attempt to find what is and isn't a reasonable explanation, and what may be most reasonable.
- miguelazo 4y agoTo be clear, I believe it was the US in command. There were likely others involved, but the other commenter is right— it doesn’t really matter exactly which NATO partner pulled the trigger. The point is that NATO attacked one of its own and that the idea of Russian involvement is ludicrous. https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307 https://thecradle.co/Article/Columns/16307
- _djo_ 4y agoSo now it’s a broad conspiracy involving them all? This is growing in the telling.
- miguelazo 4y agohttps://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-us-culpability-in-nord-stream-attack/ https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-...
- MichaelCollins 4y agoUkraine also had a rational motive, but has significantly less underwater capability than the US/UK. That said, they're very resourceful, good at finding new ways to apply modern technology. I think it may have been any or a combination of the three. America is obviously the prime suspect, due to Biden's public albeit deniable vague threat.
- mhermher 4y agoUkrainians may have been involved, but the US would have been the necessary component, and the UK additionally would have been sufficient.
- MichaelCollins 4y agoYes, certainly if it was done with a conventional submarine. But it's not impossible that Ukraine found a way to do it independently with a UUV/etc.
- 2devnull 4y agohttps://www.wired.com/story/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-dark-ships/amp https://www.wired.com/story/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-d... Could be submarine but why not divers?
- MichaelCollins 4y agoCertainly a possibility. One advantage of using a submarine is you're less likely to be caught red handed, but that doesn't prove it was done with a submarine.
- 2devnull 4y agoMotive overwhelmingly points to Ukraine, it’s just a question of capacity to dive to 200 feet?
- kruxigt 4y ago
- lawn 4y ago
- miguelazo 4y ago
- bsjaux628 4y ago[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- miguelazo 4y agoYes, God forbid someone present opposing views. I must be working for the Kremlin. I forgot we were all supposed to take our marching orders from MSNBC. Pretty funny coming from an account that has been here less than a month.
- waffleiron 4y agoYou should do this by email, now you are just calling someone a shill indirectly.
- jonwithoutanh 4y agoKinda like how it would be stupid for Russia to engage in a war with Ukraine. They'd never do something that dumb.
- ohiovr 4y agoSince Russia is red meat here, what would you say if China put SLBMS in Mexico?
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y agoI'd say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung_ho https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung_ho :->
- miguelazo 4y agohttps://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-us-culpability-in-nord-stream-attack/ https://fair.org/home/us-medias-intellectual-no-fly-zone-on-...
- denton-scratch 4y agoOK, fair.org. Do you have something to say about it?
- sixQuarks 4y agoI totally agree. I can’t believe anyone could have seriously thought Russia would sabotage their own infrastructure, yet this was the leading theory on mainstream news
- Spooky23 4y agoWhy not? I’m sure some oligarch buddy of Putin made a lot of dollars on the price effects. I don’t know or care, but the number of bots that appeared after this happened makes it seem more like a Russian coverup than an American one.
- om2 4y agoRussia doesn’t own the pipeline. And they used the damage to Nordstream 1 as an excuse to demand that Germany accept supply through Nordstream 2. Russia had in any case turned off all supply via NS1 to Germany. So no real harm to Russia and strengthens their energy blackmail position.
- miguelazo 4y agoWhile the pipeline is technically owned by some Swiss holding company, Russia still invested billions in its construction and will now lose billions more in lost revenue, not to mention German strategic dependence on Russia. The idea that there’s no real harm to Russia is patently absurd.
- dislikedtom2 4y agoIt's a classic. Attack yourself and blame the other guy. This is how wars often start. The problem is that these cases are purely speculative, when executed right.
- ohiovr 4y agoDoesn't always work. Zelensky tried to ignite a nuclear war but was told by Biden to sit down and shut the fuck up.
- welterde 4y ago
- krisoft 4y ago> It’s extremely obvious who was responsible. Please tell us more. > It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect. Why?
- miguelazo 4y agoGermany and Russia were negotiating resuming pipeline operations when Nordstream was blown up. And oh, I don’t know seems pretty obvious that Russia has ZERO motive to blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline.
- krisoft 4y ago> Germany and Russia were negotiating resuming pipeline operations when Nordstream was blown up. I haven’t heard about this at the time or since. Do you have a source for this information? > And oh, I don’t know seems pretty obvious that Russia has ZERO motive to blow up its own 10 billion dollar pipeline. Russia is not a monolithic entity. For example if I were Putin I would fear that someone deposes me, then they makes peace with the West and they quickly resume the gas transit. By making it so the gas transit can’t be quickly resumed one also insures one’s self against such plans by lowering the possible reward of it.
- rhn_mk1 4y agoI don't know, it's pretty obvious Germany has ZERO motive to blow up a pipeline without which it will have trouble surviving the winter.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago> it will have trouble surviving the winter. Relax, they're going to be fine.
- miguelazo 4y agoTell that to the people whose energy bills have already tripled in less than a year.
- temporalparts 4y agoThis has happened before for another conflict that Russia was involved in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Russia%E2%80%93Georgia_en... > It’s especially absurd that Russia was ever even considered a suspect. So I don't see how it's absurd to suspect a repeat of the nearly exact same situation where the only common party is Russia. The fact that you think it's absurd without looking into facts either makes you naive or worse.
- colordrops 4y agoIn the link you provide, I don't understand why Russia couldn't just turn the gas flow off rather than destroy the lines, if the purpose is blackmail. Also, if you look at the two recent times the US accused Syria of chemical attacks, both turned out to be misinformation, as determined by the international body that investigates these things. Yet the first time it "happened" was called back to as evidence that they "did it" the second time, even though neither even occurred. https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-aleppo-04f6a88cb89098925d5ca2ee2d09d74b https://apnews.com/article/chemical-weapons-syria-archive-al...
- miguelazo 4y agoExactly. These people will go through the most insane mental gymnastics to preserve their simplistic worldview. Sad to see so many brains rotted by Russiagate.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kube-system 4y agoDeniability is the main difference between shutting them off and sabotaging them.
- tsimionescu 4y agoDoes that work for the EU situation? Russia had already denied to supply the required amounts of gas before the sabotage happened...
- tsimionescu 4y agoI'm honestly saddened to see your comment so downvoted - though perhaps the tone was too problematic. While I don't share the absolute certainty, I also think the most direct story/motivations would be for the USA (perhaps via some ally like the UK) to be behind this. I don't think Russia can be entirely excluded though - perhaps for some internal political play - but it does seem to require more non-obvious motivations.
- miguelazo 4y agoIt’s not surprising, and I am used to it by now. I agree the tone was combative, but I have been losing patience with the virtually uniform acceptance of every ridiculous proclamation about Russia in the US/Western media, and the ridiculous/pathetic suggestions that anyone who questions that narrative is working for the Kremlin or somehow a Putin admirer. “This time is different, this a good war.” Makes me want to vomit.